Stapke & Harris v. Raskov CA2/7
B252176M
Cal. Ct. App.May 12, 2015Background
- Stapke & Harris represented the heirs in a probate matter; the probate court awarded fees to the firm’s client, Raskov/Aronson, to be paid by the trust; Stapke & Harris later pursued additional fees under the MFAA arbitration; THC, Inc. acquired Stapke & Harris’s assets, including the fee claim, in 2007; Aronson sought a trial de novo of the arbitration award and Stapke & Harris asserted cross-claims for fees, leading to a jury trial and judgment in Stapke & Harris’s favor; Raskov argued Stapke & Harris lacked standing and that the trial court erred on expert testimony and prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to prosecute the fee claim | Raskov argues Stapke & Harris lacked standing after asset assignment to THC | Stapke & Harris contends THC consent defeats standing and assignment preserved rights | THC’s consent defeats standing; assignment did not bar action, but consent cured standing issue. |
| Admissibility of expert testimony on malpractice | Raskov sought to elicit standard-of-care/malpractice opinions from Schoenherr | Court properly limited testimony to declared scope; malpractice opinions outside declaration excluded | Trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusion proper due to lack of proper declaration and scope. |
| Sufficiency of the damage award | Discrepancies in Karelis’s and Stapke’s inputs show insufficient evidence | Evidence supported the jury verdict; conflicts resolved in favor of Stapke & Harris | Substantial evidence supports the $39,523.87 fee award. |
| Prejudgment interest under Civil Code §3287 | Interest should reflect uncertainty in the amount owed before judgment | Amount became readily ascertainable by November 1, 2006; interest appropriate | Prejudgment interest awarded; amount readily ascertainable and recoverable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonds v. Roy, 20 Cal.4th 140 (1999) (expert disclosure rules require fair notice and scope of testimony)
- Kennemur v. State of California, 133 Cal.App.3d 907 (1982) (expert testimony scope cannot be expanded after declaration unless allowed)
- City of Hope National Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc., 43 Cal.4th 375 (2008) (contract interpretation under documents governs assignment/consent)
- Greco v. Oregon Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 191 Cal.App.2d 674 (1961) (consent of assignee defeats standing objections when defenses available against assignee)
- Essex Ins. Co. v. Five Star Dye House, Inc., 38 Cal.4th 1252 (2006) (recognizing assignability of contract-based claims and real party in interest)
- Searles Valley Minerals Operations Inc. v. Ralph M. Parson Service Co., 191 Cal.App.4th 1394 (2011) (assignment of claims generally transfers standing to pursue action)
- Maynard v. Brandon, 36 Cal.4th 364 (2005) (standard for determining damages/uncertainty in prejudgment interest)
- Bonds v. Roy, 20 Cal.4th 140 (1999) (see above)