Defense verdict in breach of contract claim involving sale of dental practice. San Francisco County.

Summary

Plaintiff claims breach of contract after buying defendant's periodontal practice. Jury finds for defense.

Case Name: Doina Panaite, DDS v. George K. Merijohn, DDS, et al.
Court and Case Number: San Francisco County Superior Court / CGC-10-502257
Date of Verdict or Judgment: Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Date Action was Filed: Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Type of Case: Breach of Contract, Breach of Warranty, Fraud, Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Suzanne Bolanos
Plaintiffs:
Doina Panaite, DDS
Defendants:
George K. Merijohn, DDS; George K. Merijohn, DDS, P.C.
Type of Result: Jury Verdict

Gross Verdict or Award: Verdict in favor of Defendant.
Award as to each Defendant:
Defendant is awarded all attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of this lawsuit. Defendants awarded $385,754.25 in attorney's fees and $71,411.89 in costs pursuant to CCP 998.
Economic Damages:
Plaintiff claimed economic damages in excess of $1 million.
Punitive Damages:
Jury found no basis for punitive damages.
Trial or Arbitration Time: 14 days
Jury Deliberation Time: 2 days
Post Trial Motions & Post-Verdict Settlements: Motion for Attorneys' Fees Motion to Tax Costs Ex-Parte Motion re: Bond Motion for New Trial

Attorney for the Plaintiff:
O'Connor & Associates by John O'Connor, San Francisco.
Attorney for the Defendant:
The Goldman Law Firm by Ronald P. Goldman and Jennifer M. Ellis, Tiburon.

Plaintiff's Technical Experts:
Gary Schaub, dental practice broker, Portland, OR.
Defendant's Technical Experts:
Tim Giroux, dental practice broker, Yuba City.

Facts and Background:
This case arose out of the alleged breach of contract and fraud against defendant in sale of a periodontal practice. Plaintiff alleged that defendant misrepresented the value of the practice and failed to disclose material problems with the practice.
Plaintiff's Contentions:
That defendant falsely represented his practice to her. That defendant "hyped" up his practice and defrauded her by making plaintiff think the practice was more profitable then it actually was. That defendant "made the material promises in the Contract without the present intent of performing them." That defendant interfered with plaintiff's practice and patients.
Defendant's Contentions:
Defendant denied all of plaintiff's contentions and contended that the practice sale was very successful in that plaintiff was producing millions in income, placing her practice in the top 3% of the country.

Breach of contract, fraud and deceit. Plaintiff asked for general, special, and punitive damages.