Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025-43/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA GRENING WOLK,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PHILIP R. GREEN,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5025 BZ

ORDER DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Gloria Wolk seeks summary judgment on all of

her claims, as well as summary adjudication of several of

defendant Philip Green’s affirmative defenses. Her motion for

summary judgment is DENIED, IN PART. 

As set forth in the Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment in Part, there are significant disputes as to

material questions of fact that should be presented to a jury. 

Accordingly, Wolk has failed present evidence that would

support granting her summary judgment on her claims for

relief.

Wolk also seeks summary adjudication of Green’s

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 192 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Wolk also requested summary adjudication as to

Green’s twenty-first affirmative defense regarding her Elder

Abuse claim. However, Green has withdrawn that affirmative

defense.

2

affirmative defenses numbers: 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15 and 201

. 

Green has presented sufficient facts to establish that

there are triable issues of material facts as to his

affirmative defenses numbers 3 (comparative negligence) and 5

(failure to mitigate). Wolk’s request for summary

adjudication as to those defenses is DENIED. 

The court has serious reservations as to whether many of

Green’s other “affirmative defenses” actually constitute

affirmative defenses. Generally speaking, an affirmative

defense is any matter not at issue under a simple denial of

allegations in the complaint that will defeat a plaintiff’s

claim, even if the plaintiff’s allegations are true. See

William W. Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima, & James M.

Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:232 (2007). 

Ordinarily, their legal sufficiency would have been tested by

Wolk filing a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss or strike the

defenses but she did not file such a motion. Instead, she has

moved for summary adjudication based largely on her belief

that the underlying facts do not support the affirmative

defenses. Wolk has generally provided no authority for the

proposition that Green’s affirmative defenses are not truly

affirmative defenses and Green has generally provided no

authority in support of the sufficiency of his affirmative

defenses.

For example, Green’s sixth affirmative defense alleges an

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 192 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

absence of reliance on any representations made by Green. In

California, justifiable reliance is an element of Wolk’s fraud

and misrepresentation claims, on which she has the burden. 5

Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, Torts, § 772, p. 1121 (10th ed.

2005). As noted above, there are disputed issues of fact as

to whether Wolk will prevail on her fraud and

misrepresentation claims. Since the issue of reliance will be

before the jury as part of Wolk’s case, her motion is GRANTED

as to the sixth defense. 

Green’s seventh affirmative defense (ratification) and

eleventh affirmative defense (waiver) are likewise somewhat

misplaced. The law seems clear that a client who signs a

legal services contract and who signs a settlement agreement

can still sue for malpractice and related claims under

appropriate circumstances. See e.g. Marshak v. Ballesteros,

72 Cal.App.4th 1514, 1518 (1999) (A plaintiff in a legal

malpractice action can recover if she is able to show that she

would have received a better result than the settlement to

which she agreed). However, Green also asserts that Wolk

approved of other decisions that were made during the

representation which she now appears to challenge. While the

evidence that these discussions were material is thin, it is

often disputed. The motion for summary judgment as to these

defenses therefore will be DENIED. Green is cautioned that

the jury will not be instructed on these issues unless there

is evidence at trial to warrant such an instruction. 

Wolk’s motion as to the thirteenth defense, judgmental

immunity, is DENIED. Judgmental immunity is recognized as a

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 192 Filed 03/26/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

defense to a legal malpractice action when the attorney’s

error results “from an honest error in judgment concerning a

doubtful or debatable point of law.” Davis v. Damrell, 119

Cal.App.3d 883, 887 (1981). There are sufficient disputed

issues as to how well established the law was in certain

areas, such as the single publication rule as it pertained to

internet publications, and whether the research Green

performed was reasonable, for this issue to proceed to trial. 

See Smith v. Lewis, 13 Cal.3d 349 (1975) disapprove on other

grounds in In re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838, 851, fn. 14

(1976); Village Nurseries L.P. v. Greenbaum, 101 Cal.App.4th

26, 36-37. 

Green’s affirmative defenses numbers fifteen and twenty

are unintelligible to the court. Green has cited no authority

for the proposition that either of these defenses have a basis

in law. Wolk’s motion is GRANTED as to these defenses subject

to Green’s right to revive them upon making an appropriate

showing that they are recognized as affirmative defenses and

are supported by facts adduced at trial.

 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

Wolk’s motion for summary judgment on her claims for relief is

DENIED. Wolk’s request for summary adjudication is DENIED as

to Green’s affirmative defenses numbers: 3 (comparative

negligence); 5 (failure to mitigate); 7 (ratification); 11

(waiver) and 13 (judgmental immunity), and GRANTED as to 

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 192 Filed 03/26/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Green’s sixth, fifteenth and twentieth affirmative defenses.

Dated: March 26, 2008

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\WOLK\SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS\ORDER DENYING WOLK'S SUM

JUGMT.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 192 Filed 03/26/08 Page 5 of 5