Majlessi v. Parman
Plaintiff and appellant Ardeshir Majlessi appeals a judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents Maryam Parman, Mitra Parman, The Parman Law Group, Inc., Mark Steven Algorri, Ernest P. Algorri and Dewitt Algorri & Algorri (defendants)[1] following an order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of causes of action (MSJ). We reverse the judgment.
Plaintiff is an attorney who represented Marvin Vindel in a personal injury action against third parties. At Vindel’s request, defendants replaced plaintiff as counsel in the personal injury action. Vindel and defendants subsequently received a multimillion dollar settlement payment but did not honor plaintiff’s alleged lien for attorney fees.
The trial court ruled that plaintiff could not prevail on any of his causes of action as a matter of law. At the heart of the court’s decision were its findings that plaintiff and Vindel did not have a contractual relationship. We conclude that there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether Vindel executed a retainer agreement. The trial court therefore erroneously granted defendants summary judgment.
Comments on Majlessi v. Parman