Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GoTek Energy, Inc. v. SoCal IP Law Group, LLP

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

October 12, 2016

GOTEK ENERGY, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
SOCAL IP LAW GROUP, LLP, Defendant and Respondent.

Page 1241

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1242

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1243

         Superior Court County No. 56-2013-00444783-CU-PN-VTA of Ventura Vincent O'Neil, Judge

         COUNSEL

         Parker Mills, David B. Parker, Joel A. Osman, and Andrew A. Talebi, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

         Klinedinst, Gregor A. Hensrude, Bradley R. Cochran, and Sarah H. Lanham, for Defendant and Respondent.

         OPINION

         YEGAN, Acting P. J.

         In this legal malpractice action, GoTek Energy, Inc., (client) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of SoCal IP Law Group, LLP, (firm one). The trial court granted firm one's motion for summary judgment. Client also appeals from a postjudgment order awarding firm one attorney fees of $140, 000.

         Firm one was client's patent counsel. Firm one failed to timely file patent applications. Client retained Parker Mills (firm two) to bring a malpractice action against firm one. The trial court ruled that firm two had not filed the action within the one-year statute of limitations. Client contends that the statute of limitations was tolled under the continuous representation exception of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, subdivision (a)(2).[1] Even if the statute of limitations was not tolled, client contends that firm one is not entitled to recover attorney fees. We affirm.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         As client's patent counsel, firm one's duties included obtaining “‘patent rights in all applicable foreign countries.'” In June or July 2012, firm one informed client that it failed to timely file applications for patent rights in Japan and Brazil. In August 2012, firm one “admitted... that it was

Page 1244

negligent.” On September 26, 2012, client retained firm two “for the purpose[] of investigating whether [firm one's] negligence in failing to timely file the patents in Japan and Brazil amounted to legal malpractice.”

         On November 5, 2012, firm one received a fax from firm two stating that client was making a malpractice claim against it. Firm two requested that firm one “tender this claim to your insurance carrier.”

         On November 7, 2012, firm one sent an email to client stating that, in view of the malpractice claim, it “must withdraw” as counsel. “Consequently, the firm's attorney-client relationship with [client] is terminated forthwith, and we no longer represent [it] with regard to any matters.” Firm one continued, “Please tell us immediately where we should send [client's] files, and we will arrange for their delivery. You should retain patent counsel to handle your patent matters.”

         In a November 8, 2012 letter to firm one, client requested that firm one “immediately make all necessary preparations and take all necessary actions to deliver all [of client's] files to” Lucas Wenthe at Armstrong Teasdale, LLP. Client had previously “engaged the services of Armstrong Teasdale to render legal work, primarily in the realm of trademarking.” In the letter client noted: “It would be helpful to transfer all electronic files by Nov. 16, 2012 and remaining original hard copies (where electronic copies aren't available) by Nov. 23, 2012.” The concluding sentence states, “[Client] sincerely appreciates the services provided by ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.