Gonzales v Silverhawk San Joaquin County Superior Court Case Number 39-2015-00326258.


From the appellate ruling it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

Attorney Sunita Kapoor is an attorney. She, her husband, and a corporation were sued for failing to make payments relating to the purchase of a Chevron gas station.

She then counter-sued claiming the value of the business, purchased eleven years earlier, had been overstated by the seller.

The trial judge dismissed her cross-complaint, ruling her claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

The judge then awarded the other party attorney's fees for winning against Sunita Kapoor's claims.




Attorney Kapoor appealed.

The court of appeals said there needed to be a reason why Kapoor did not, or reasonably could not, have discovered the alleged over-value of the business earlier during the preceding 11 years.

The justices said the "Kapoors failed, and continue to fail, to explain why they could not have discovered the true value of the business sooner and what reasonable steps they took to ascertain the true value so as to trigger the delayed discovery rule."




The court noted when the gas station purchase was made there was a six-month due diligence period for Kapoor to investigate and evaluate the value of the business.




The court said the statute of limitations was at most four years.

The "discovery rule" applies when a claim is discovered or should have been discovered.

However, someone cannot sit back and do nothing. They must seek to learn the facts supporting their claim.




The justices noted Sunita Kapoor had access to all the financial records for the business.

However, she failed to obtain her own appraisal of the business.

The appellate justices said "any ordinary prudent person would investigate the price of a business during the due diligence period before closing on the transaction."

She did not make any efforts to value the business.




A unanimous court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of Sunita Kapoor's claims.

Wow.

Attorney Sunita Kapoor and her husband paid $1.8 million dollars for a gas station with a convenience store and car wash.

She made no effort to independently value the business.

Judges said an "ordinary prudent person" would investigate the price of a business.

In our opinion the judges were saying Sunita Kapoor is not a prudent person - because she could not make sufficient allegations that she did an investigation.

She is also not ordinary. She is an attorney.

In our opinion we would also want our attorney to know about the statute of limitations and how the discovery rule worked.

If attorney Sunita Kapoor could not be prudent in her own life and not investigate a $1.8 million transaction, why would you think she would do better representing your interests?

Sunita Kapoor was admitted to the California Bar in 1991. Bar Number 154186.

Law Offices of Sunita Kapoor
4115 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 100
Danville, California 94506

Law School: University of London