For convenience all named defendants will hereafter be referred to collectively and in the singular as Hughes & Hughes. The individual defendants were alleged to be practicing attorneys employed by or affiliated with the Hughes & Hughes law firm or one of its predecessor law firms (Hughes & Horowitz Hughes, Horowitz & Sullivan and Hughes & Sullivan). The gist of Satya’s allegations was that Hughes & Hughes acted improperly in underlying litigationġ The 20 named defendants are the law firm of Hughes & Hughes, Lisa Bergman Hughes, Bruce Alan Hughes, David Ewing Wald, Jason James Coleman, Navid Moshtael, Richard Paul Sullivan, Dana Allan Godfrey, Ann Michelle Coleman, Lori Hunt Kennedy, Tamira Lopez Cooper, Arelis Hughes, Samantha Hughes, John Mark Kaiho, Teresa Katherine McNamara, Robin Elizabeth LeMaster-Farrimond, Candice Madanipour, Svapnaben Patel, Monique Nguyen Pham, and Caroline Margaret Walters. per., alleged 12 causes of action against Hughes & Hughes arising out of its representation of Lakshmi. Proc., § 425.16.)2 Hughes & Hughes represented Satya’s former wife Lakshmi Reddi in their dissolution action-in her individual capacity and through her court-appointed guardian ad litem Sridhar Reddi, who is the couple’s adult son.3 Satya’s 77-page complaint, filed in pro. Reddi appeals from the order dismissing his complaint against the law firm of Hughes & Hughes and 19 individual attorneys,1 after the trial court granted a special motion to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP motion). Cohen Hughes & Hughes, and Lisa Hughes for Defendants and Respondents.ĭescription: Satya V. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.ĭefendant's Attorney: Silverstein & Huston, Steven A. Hughes & HughesĬourt: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three on appeal from the Superior Court, Orange County Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to support the publication of case reports on MoreLawĬase Style: Satya V.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |