Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025-41/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 DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN PART

Defendant Philip Green’s motion for summary judgment is

DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff Gloria Wolk, in large part, has met

her burden of establishing the existence of triable issues of

fact. 

There is a substantial dispute about the facts

surrounding the inception of the attorney client relationship. 

Wolk, in her declaration, asserts that Green did not explain

his scheduling conflict until after she had agreed to retain

him and provided him a check for $10,000. Green disputes when

Wolk notified him of the trial date. This fact is material

because, Wolk contends, it undermined the attorney-client

relationship from the outset. Had she been informed of the

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 190 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 6
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

2

scheduling conflict, she stated under oath, she would have

retained another attorney. But she could not do this once she

learned of the scheduling conflict because Green would not

return her money. This, Wolk contends, created an odd

situation where, for example, Green attended Wolk’s deposition

but did not defend it because he had not yet filed a

substitution of counsel since he was waiting to find out

whether the trial court would accommodate his vacation

schedule by continuing the trial date. There are numerous

other disputed issues between the parties with respect to why

various matters in furtherance of Wolk’s defense were or were

not accomplished.

Wolk has also introduced sufficient evidence from which a

jury could reasonably conclude that the statements she made

about Wilbanks were not defamatory. She has denied making two

of the statements of which Wilbanks complained. As to the

others, as the Court of Appeal noted in reversing the

favorable ruling Wolk had obtained on her SLAPP motion, the

statements she made about Wilbanks contained some truths but

were capable of a defamatory inference because of facts that

were omitted. For example, the Court of Appeal seemed

troubled that Wolk had omitted to report that the judgment

against Wilbanks was obtained in small claims court and may

have been uncontested. Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Cal.App.4th 883,

903 (2004). Wolk has introduced some evidence that Wilbanks

contested the small claims suit. For example, Wolk attached

what appears to be an email from the plaintiff in the small

claims suit describing Wilbanks’ participation in that trial. 

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 190 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 6
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 On summary judgment, a court is to focus on the

admissibility of the contents of the evidence more than its

form. Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003).

Wolk is cautioned that at trial, assuming appropriate

objections are made, she will be required to adhere to the

Rules of Evidence when presenting her case. 

3

(Pl.’s Exhibits to Pl.’s Undisputed Facts ISO Pl.’s MSJ, Ex.

6, p. 9.) While it is true that some of the evidence Wolk

introduced may not be admissible at trial and may not conform

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)(See Orr v. Bank of

America, 285 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2002), Green has not

objected to or moved to strike such evidence.1 Moreover, it

appears that Wolk, who is pro se, has additional evidence

which she did not present. For example, she stated during

oral argument, and Green conceded, that there is a declaration

from the plaintiff in the small claims suit describing that

trial which was not filed with this court. While the court

has the option under Rule 56(e)(1) and (f) to permit Wolk to

file additional declarations, since there is no dispute about

some of the facts not presented in evidence, and because trial

is less than two months away, the court has elected to rule on

the present record and give any arguably inadmissible evidence

presented by Wolk only the weight which the court believes it

deserves.

Nor am I persuaded that a Wolk victory in the underlying

suit, with its concomitant award of costs, would not have been

a better result than the so-called “walkaway” settlement which

resulted from Green’s representation. To begin with, Wolk has

repeatedly stated that her desire in litigating the Wilbanks

action was to vindicate her reputation which, among other

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 190 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 6
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

reasons, was important for her continued work as a “consumer

watchdog” in the viatical industry. While neither side has

provided any authority on point, it would seem that a victory

vindicating her reputation, under the circumstances of this

case, would have been a better result for Wolk than the

settlement. See e.g., Barella v. Exchange Bank, 84

Cal.App.4th 793, 800 - 03 (2000) (recognizing the intangible

value of vindication to one’s reputation). Nor was the

settlement truly a “walkaway” since it required both Wolk and

Wilbanks to remove material each had posted about the other on

their respective websites and they agreed not to disparage one

another in the future. This, Wolk claims, circumscribed her

ability to continue to comment critically on Wilbanks. While

Green urges that the expense Wolk would have endured to pursue

the underlying trial would have exceeded any award of costs

Wolk might have obtained had she prevailed, it is for the jury

to decide whether Wolk was sincere in her desire to seek

vindication, especially since she has testified that she was

in the process of selling her house to finance that

litigation.

Green is not entitled to summary judgment on Wolk’s

breach of contract claims. For the reasons discussed above,

it is for the jury to decide whether the contract was

breached. Wolk has introduced evidence from which a

reasonable jury could conclude that Green charged her for

unnecessary research and to bring improper motions for which

he should not have charged. For example, it appears that

Green charged Wolk to prepare and bring motions to compel and

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 190 Filed 03/25/08 Page 4 of 6
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

2 In preparing for trial, Wolk should consider whether

it will be confusing to the jury if she presents multiple

claims for relief to recover the same damages based on the same

injury and the same set of facts. 

5

for a protective order that were denied as untimely. Green

offers no explanation for why he filed the untimely motions or

why he billed for them. Nothing in the record suggests that

he sought an order to shorten time to bring those motions. 

Green is entitled to summary adjudication on Wolk’s

unjust enrichment claim. Wolk failed to establish that there

is any restitution to which she would be entitled, that she

would not recover if she prevailed on her tort or contract

claims.2

Wolk’s request for judicial notice of an article posted

on the Los Angeles Bar Association’s website and an advisory

opinion from the State Bar of California’s Committee on

Mandatory Fee Arbitration (which clearly states it is the

official position or policy of the State Bar of California) is 

DENIED. Wolk has failed to establish the requisites set forth

in Federal Rule of Evidence 201 for such notice or the

relevance of the article and advisory opinion to the issues in

dispute. The court is aware generally that attorneys have

been charged with excessive or padded billing but the articles

in question are not evidence of whether Green did anything

improper.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the underlying

appellate opinion, Wilbanks v. Wolk 121 Cal.App.4th 883, 903

(2004), is GRANTED.

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 190 Filed 03/25/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

Green’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED except as to the

claim for unjust enrichment. 

Dated: March 25, 2008

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\WOLK\SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS\ORDER DENYING IN PART DEF'S

SUM JUGMT.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 190 Filed 03/25/08 Page 6 of 6