Overview
On Sale
$2.00
$2.00
HOLDINGS: [1]-When a lender acquired by assignment a loan being administered by a loan servicer, the lender could be liable to the borrowers for misrepresentations made by the loan servicer, as the lender's agent, after that assignment; [2]-The loan servicer owed a duty of care to the borrowers through application of the Biakanja factors, even though its involvement in the loan did not exceed its conventional role, because four of the six Biakanja factors weighed in favor of finding a duty and the other two factors were neutral; [3]-The borrowers stated a claim for negligence against the loan servicer because they sufficiently alleged that it breached its duty of care and that its conduct proximately caused their injuries; [4]-Although the borrowers failed to state an unfair competition law claim, the trial court erred by denying them leave to amend that claim.
Outcome
Judgments reversed and matter remanded with directions.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of dismissal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) which sustained defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint for breach of written contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress and denied plaintiff's motion to enforce a settlement agreement under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 664.4. The parties were represented by their own California small business attorney.
Overview
Plaintiff filed a legal malpractice claim against the defendants. Thereafter the parties engaged in negotiations which plaintiff claims resulted in a settlement agreement. Plaintiff brought a motion to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § section 664.6 which was denied. Plaintiff amended the complaint to add new causes of action for breach of written contract and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants' filed a demurrer which was sustained with respect to the causes of action for breach of written contract and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. On appeal the court affirmed the denial of the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, affirmed the demurrer with respect to the causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and reversed as to the cause of action for breach of a written contract because the allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action.
Outcome
The court affirmed denial of the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, affirmed the demurrer with respect to intentional infliction of emotional distress and reversed as to the cause of action for breach of a written contract because the allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action.
Outcome
Judgments reversed and matter remanded with directions.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of dismissal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) which sustained defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint for breach of written contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress and denied plaintiff's motion to enforce a settlement agreement under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 664.4. The parties were represented by their own California small business attorney.
Overview
Plaintiff filed a legal malpractice claim against the defendants. Thereafter the parties engaged in negotiations which plaintiff claims resulted in a settlement agreement. Plaintiff brought a motion to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § section 664.6 which was denied. Plaintiff amended the complaint to add new causes of action for breach of written contract and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants' filed a demurrer which was sustained with respect to the causes of action for breach of written contract and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. On appeal the court affirmed the denial of the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, affirmed the demurrer with respect to the causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and reversed as to the cause of action for breach of a written contract because the allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action.
Outcome
The court affirmed denial of the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, affirmed the demurrer with respect to intentional infliction of emotional distress and reversed as to the cause of action for breach of a written contract because the allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action.