State Summary Judgment Exemplar

1 SARAH JANE OLSON (Bar No. 105782) 2 6223 Variel Street Woodland Hills, California 91354 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH JANE OLSON 3 (818) 733-4500 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SARAH JANE OLSON, an individual, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 00999/4AEDF269-1DE3-48A0-87E4-114628CE74D3.DOC Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Plaintiff, vs. HERB HANCOCK, an individual, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. NW 291 033 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS; DECLARATION OF SARAH JANE OLSON; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF DATE: March 4, 2002 TIME: 9:00 a.m DEPT: E/Judge Boyd FILING DATE: 8/27/01 TRIAL DATE: None set SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on March 4, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon 2 thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department E of this Court, located at 14400 Erwin Street 3 Mall, Van Nuys, California, Plaintiff SARAH JANE OLSON will move the court for summary 4 judgment in favor of Plaintiff on Plaintiff's Complaint for Breach of Contract. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 00999/4AEDF269-1DE3-48A0-87E4-114628CE74D3.DOC This motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, the Declaration of SARAH JANE OLSON, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed and served herewith, the papers and records on file herein, and on such other and further argument and evidence as may be presented at the hearing on this motion. DATED: January 23, 2002 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH JANE OLSON BY: Sarah Jane Olson SARAH JANE OLSON Attorneys for Plaintiff SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 1 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH JANE OLSON 2 SARAH JANE OLSON (Bar No. 105782) 6223 Variel Street 3 Woodland Hills, California 91354 (818) 733-4500 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 vs. HERB HANCOCK, an individual, SARAH JANE OLSON, an individual, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. NE 291 033 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 15 16 17 18 19 20 Defendants. Plaintiff SARAH JANE OLSON hereby submits this Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of her Motion for Summary Judgment. By reason of these facts, every essential element of Plaintiff's cause of action of breach of contract is established, and it 21 22 is shown that Defendant HERB HANCOCK cannot prevail. 23 /// 24 25 1. Undisputed Facts On July 5, 2000, Plaintiff and 1. Evidentiary Support Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶ 4 (admitted as true in Defendant’s Answer ¶ 1). 26 Defendant entered into the Attorney-Client Fee 27 28 00999/4AEDF269-1DE3-48A0-87E4-114628CE74D3.DOC Agreement attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 1 2 as Exhibit A. 2. Plaintiff performed all conditions, 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶ 5 (admitted as true in Defendant’s Answer ¶ 1). 3 covenants, and promises required on her part 4 under the Agreement by successfully negotiating 5 a settlement of Defendant’s claim for personal 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4. Defendant has not paid Plaintiff 4. Plaintiff recovered the sum of $150,000.00 on Defendant’s behalf. injuries. 3. Under the terms of this settlement, 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶ 5 (admitted as true in Defendant’s Answer ¶ 1); Declaration of SARAH JANE OLSON 7:9-21. Declaration of SARAH JANE OLSON 7:22-24. 13 any part of the $30,000.00 contingency fee owed 14 to Plaintiff under the Agreement. 15 16 DATED: January 23, 2002 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH JANE OLSON 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 00999/4AEDF269-1DE3-48A0-87E4-114628CE74D3.DOC BY: Sarah Jane Olson SARAH JANE OLSON Attorneys for Plaintiff SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 1 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH JANE OLSON 2 SARAH JANE OLSON (Bar No. 105782) 6223 Variel Street 3 Woodland Hills, California 91354 (818) 733-4500 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SARAH JANE OLSON, an individual, 12 13 Plaintiff, vs. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. NW 291 033 DECLARATION OF SARAH JANE OLSON FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 HERB HANCOCK, an individual, 15 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 I, SARAH JANE OLSON, declare: 1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. The matters set forth herein 21 are known to me of my own personal knowledge, and I could and would testify as to them if called 22 upon to do so. 23 24 personal injury cases. My practice is so successful that I was featured in the PBS Special Feature 2. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in California. I specialize in 25 26 27 28 00999/4AEDF269-1DE3-48A0-87E4-114628CE74D3.DOC entitled, “Personal Injury Lawyers: Greedy Ambulance Chasers or Crusaders Against Injustice?” 3. On the evening of July 5, 2000, I was relaxing in the cafeteria of Kaiser SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 1 Permanente Hospital in Woodland Hills, as I often do, when I overheard two nurses discussing what 2 they referred to as “the mayor’s accident.” I listened carefully to the rest of their conversation and 3 learned that the Mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, had a head-on collision with a car driven 4 by one HERB HANCOCK. According to the nurses, MR. HANCOCK was seriously injured and 5 was presently a patient on the fifth floor. 6 7 8 9 10 course of events, further victimized by insurance carriers. Without proper representation, they frequently sign away their claims in exchange for compensation far less than the law allows. 4. Upon hearing this information, I decided to pay a visit to MR. HANCOCK. I did this for philosophical reasons. I believe that automobile accident victims are, in the ordinary 11 Consequently, I do my part to alleviate this widespread injustice by educating accident victims as to 12 their rights whenever possible and by offering my services in the negotiation of their claims with the 13 immoral insurance carriers. 14 15 16 heard of his automobile accident with the mayor, and that I would handle his case against Mr. 5. I proceeded to visit MR. HANCOCK on the fifth floor. I began by introducing myself and informing him that I was a personal injury lawyer. I told him that I had 17 18 Riordan if he wished me to do so. He replied, “I’ll think about it.” I then left his room so he could 19 get some rest. 20 6. I then proceeded back to my law office and revised my standard Attorney- 21 Client Fee Agreement for presentation to MR. HANCOCK. I returned to the hospital and again told 22 MR. HANCOCK that I would be happy to represent him in his dealings with Mr. Riordan. I handed 23 24 him, as is my custom. He signed the agreement without comment. I then asked him what kind of him the Attorney-Client Fee Agreement and explained the meaning of each and every paragraph to 25 26 settlement he was looking for. He told me that he would be happy with $100,000.00 so that he 27 could pay his medical bills and the damage to his car. I then asked him if I had his authorization to 28 00999/4AEDF269-1DE3-48A0-87E4-114628CE74D3.DOC SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 1 settle his case for any amount equal to or greater than $100,000.00. He replied, “Yes.” I then 2 wished MR. HANCOCK good night and left for home. 3 7. I called Mr. Riordan’s office the first thing the next morning. I informed him 4 that I represented MR. HANCOCK and that I wanted to know the name and number of the 5 insurance adjuster assigned to MR. HANCOCK’S claim. Mr. Riordan became quite flustered and 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 told him that such an arrangement was possible if the price was right. We agreed to discuss the matter by phone in the near future. 8. I discussed the matter again with Mr. Riordan five times over the next week. said that the matter did not necessarily have to be resolved by resort to the insurance companies. He suggested that we could perhaps come to some arrangement without making an insurance claim. I We eventually settled the matter on July 13 on the following terms: MR. HANCOCK would waive 13 his rights to pursue his claim against Mr. Riordan in exchange for the sum of $150,000.00. Mr. 14 Riordan told me he would pay this sum by personal check. I then left a phone message for MR. 15 HANCOCK at his home detailing the terms of the settlement. 9. 16 17 18 I waited until the end of the month for Mr. Riordan’s check, but it never came. I called Mr. Riordan and asked him the reason for the delay. He told me that he had sent the 19 check for $150,000.00 directly to MR. HANCOCK on July 14, and that the check had already 20 cleared. I told Mr. Riordan that this was not the way lawyers do business; settlement checks are 21 customarily tendered to the lawyer, who then distributes the net proceeds to the client after deduction 22 of fees and costs. He told me that was my problem and hung up the phone. 23 24 He never returned my call. I sent him a letter demanding payment of my $30,000.00 contingency 10. I then called MR. HANCOCK’S home and left a message for him to call me. 25 26 27 28 00999/4AEDF269-1DE3-48A0-87E4-114628CE74D3.DOC fee. He never responded to this letter or paid any of my fee. 11. I spent many hours of my professional time on MR. HANCOCK’S case and SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 1 I fairly earned my contingency fee. I obtained a settlement that was even better than MR. 2 HANCOCK wanted, and I obtained the settlement with his full authorization. I do not take lightly 3 filing a lawsuit against my own client, but I feel I have no choice. 4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 5 foregoing is true and correct and this declaration was executed on January 23, 2002, at Malibu, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 00999/4AEDF269-1DE3-48A0-87E4-114628CE74D3.DOC California. Sarah Jane Olson SARAH JANE OLSON SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 1 SARAH JANE OLSON (Bar No. 105782) 2 6223 Variel Street Woodland Hills, California 91354 3 (818) 733-4500 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH JANE OLSON 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 vs. HERB HANCOCK, an individual, SARAH JANE OLSON, an individual, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. NW 291 033 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 15 16 17 18 19 20 /// Defendants. Plaintiff SARAH JANE OLSON respectfully submits the following points and authorities in support of her Motion for Summary Judgment: 21 22 23 STATEMENT OF FACTS All of the relevant facts of this matter are set forth in Plaintiff's Separate Statement of 24 Undisputed Material Facts. As these undisputed facts show, there are no issues of fact in this case. 25 26 27 28 00999/4AEDF269-1DE3-48A0-87E4-114628CE74D3.DOC ARGUMENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 1 I. A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILL LIE WHERE THERE ARE NO ISSUES 2 OF FACT AND THE MOVING PARTY IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT 3 AS A MATTER OF LAW 4 The basic provisions of California Civil Procedure Code section 437c are 5 uncontested and govern this matter. As Plaintiff will demonstrate, she is entitled to judgment as a 6 7 8 9 10 11 II. DEFENDANT BREACHED HIS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF AS A MATTER OF LAW AND IS LIABLE FOR $30,000 IN DAMAGES The law of contracts is clear. Where a party has freely entered into a contract, the matter of law, and this Court should so rule. 12 unjustified or unexcused failure to perform the contract is a breach. See 1 Witkin Sum. Cal. Law 13 Contracts § 791. 14 15 16 written fee agreement, Defendant admits that Plaintiff performed as required under the Agreement, The evidence here shows that Defendant has, without justification or excuse, breached his agreement to pay Defendant legal fees of $30,000.00. Defendant admits signing the 17 18 and Defendants admits receiving the value of Plaintiff’s services. This Court has no choice but to do 19 justice by ruling in Plaintiff’s favor. 20 /// 21 /// 22 23 24 CONCLUSION 25 26 For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests the court to enter 27 summary judgment in her favor on Plaintiff's Complaint for Breach of Contract, and award Plaintiff 28 00999/4AEDF269-1DE3-48A0-87E4-114628CE74D3.DOC SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 1 $30,000.00 in damages with interest from July 31, 2002, and attorney’s fees as determined by 2 Plaintiff’s post-judgment declaration. 3 4 5 DATED: January 23, 2002 6 7 BY: Sarah Jane Olson SARAH JANE OLSON Attorneys for Plaintiff LAW OFFICES OF SARAH JANE OLSON 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 00999/4AEDF269-1DE3-48A0-87E4-114628CE74D3.DOC SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION