My client got cheated by a statewide real-estate investment company. The investment company failed to pay her for her construction-management services. Two-hundred-thousand dollars they failed to pay her.
My client is a tiny business. Two-hundred-thousand dollars is a big deal to her. To give you an idea, my client kept her business records in the back of a truck, because she didn't have an office. She can’t absorb a two-hundred-thousand-dollar loss. When the investment company withheld payment, my client ran short of money.
Running short of money, my client and her associate/brother missed a payment on the truck. The truck was owned by a colleague of my client, a former friend, who had over time become thick with the owners of the investment company. The former friend took back the truck in the middle of the night, with all of my client’s business records in it.
Through a pending lawsuit, we have gotten back some of the business records. But the former friend testified that he turned them over for "safe-keeping" to the investment company’s lawyer. We never got back the written contract between my client and the investment company – the contract that entitles my client to payment of $200,000. Go figure.
We sue the investment company. We file a complaint in court. A complaint is a formal document that states who’s being sued and what for. Their lawyer files a demurrer. A demurrer objects to the adequacy of the complaint. It’s a way of kicking out un-meritorious lawsuits almost before they start.
In his demurrer, the investment company’s lawyer argues that we must attach to our complaint the written contract between my client and the investment company, or we must state the contract's terms word-for-word. He cites cases to prove this. Of course, we can’t attach the contract, and we can’t quote it word-for-word, because it seems that the investment company’s lawyer has kept the contract from us. You wonder if he was pleased with himself as he filed the demurrer.
Naturally, I oppose the demurrer. And I point out that in all likelihood, the lawyer for the investment company has our copy of the contract. And I point out that in 2002 the California Supreme Court ruled that contracts need not be attached to complaints, and that the complaint need not quote the contract word-for-word. It’s good enough if the complaint pleads the contract’s legal effect. Which we did.
So the hearing on the demurrer is today. And the attorney for the investment company yammers and carries on. The judge listens to him. Then he doesn’t even turn to me for my response. He says, "Let’s get past the pleading stage. You have ten days to answer the complaint." We win. The demurrer fails.
The case will still be a hard fight. This case truly is David versus Goliath. And Goliath fights dirty.
No comments:
Post a Comment