Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Tentative Rulings in SDCOE Fringe Benefits Consortium, Dan Puplava, Diane Crosier lawsuit

All tentative rulings heard on April 9, 2010 were finalized.

The judge didn't give any litigant everything he wanted without a trial. Judge Styn made the following Tentative Rulings:

1. Dan Puplava will have to answer for unfair competition, but not
conversion or interference. LINK

2. Puplava motion for summary judgment denied: "Puplava fails to cite authority providing for summary adjudication of whether a duty was breached. Absent such authority, there is no basis to summarily adjudicate the claims for breach of duty as requested by Puplava. Even if there was such authority, Puplava's separate statement fails to identify the specific breach of duty and the undisputed facts as to each breach of duty for which summary adjudication is sought.

3. Triable issues of fact remain re Puplava's damages. LINK

4. Judge Styn kept alive the Breach of Written Contract charge against the Consortium as well as Breach of Contract, Interference and Unfair Competition against Crosier. He threw out Breach of Oral/Implied Contract against the Consortium. LINK

5. Click HERE for Tentative Ruling concerning the following:
1. Breach of Contract--Defendants' motion for summary
adjudication is granted.
2. Furtahdo wins: Breach of Implied Contract--Defendants' motion for summary adjudication is granted.
3. Misappropriation of Trade Secret--Defendants' motion
for summary adjudication is denied.
4. Statutory Libel--Defendants' motion for summary
adjudication is denied.
5. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic
Defendants' motion for summary adjudication is denied.
6. Misappropriation of Name--Defendants' motion for
summary adjudication is denied.

The judge did not favor the big dogs as blatantly as he did in Maura Larkins' malpractice lawsuit against attorney Elizabeth Schulman. In a better world, Judge Styn would have forwarded the evidence in the Schulman case to the Bar Association. Instead, he ignored it (helping Elizabeth Schulman avoid all responsibility for her wrongful acts), and then punished Maura Larkins financially for bringing the lawsuit.

The decisions of the court in the Schulman case illustrate why Elizabeth Schulman felt confident that she could get away with violating the legal requirements for an
attorney who agrees to represent a client. Schulman possessed sworn testimony that
contradicted the testimony of the witnesses appearing for Chula Vista
Elementary School District. Why did she not present it? Judge Styn’s prejudices against in pro per litigants not only protected Schulman from any legal consequences for her wrongdoing, but caused him to dismiss with prejudice a case in which the
complaint itself contained enough evidence to prove Schulman guilty of the
causes of action against her.

See all Dan Puplava posts.
See all Diane Crosier posts.
See all Lora Duzyk posts.
See all SDCOE posts.

No comments: