JILLIAN MICHAELS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, et al., Defendants and Respondents., 62 Cal. App. 5th 512

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-An expert declaration on damages, submitted in opposition to a motion for summary adjudication, was admissible in part under Evid. Code, §§ 801, subd. (b), 802, in a legal malpractice action alleging inconsistencies in contractual terms because the expert witness relied on data from an established business to calculate lost profits, although anticipated profits from a later period were based on an unsupported assumption and profits from a failed deal were correctly excluded as speculative; [2]-Summary adjudication was inappropriate because causation and damages were shown, a triable question of fact existed as to the nature and extent of misconduct alleged to constitute unclean hands, and timeliness under Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6, subd. (a), depended upon factual findings as to whether acts were tangential to prior representation or demonstrated continuous representation.