- 30 -
tions in the pretrial order relating to their claims against FIG
for breaches of contract, indemnity, and fraudulent misrepresen-
tations.
In the pretrial order, the Diamonds, as well as DCI, were
identified as the plaintiffs in the Farmers lawsuit.21 In that
order, those plaintiffs raised claims against FIG for, inter
alia, breaches of contract and fraudulent misrepresentations and
sought damages from FIG with respect to those claims.22
With respect to the plaintiffs' claims against FIG for
breaches of contract, the pretrial order alleged, inter alia:
(1) That the plaintiffs were parties to, bound by, and entitled
to the benefits of the agreement at issue in the Farmers lawsuit;
(2) that DCI had started ETS during 1982 for the purpose of
providing transcription services to FIG in connection with the
investigative work that it was performing for FIG; (3) that DCI
had thereafter transferred ownership of ETS to the Diamonds;
21 Respondent contends that ETS was not identified as a plain-
tiff in the Farmers lawsuit. That ETS was not so identified does
not preclude our finding that the Diamonds were the plaintiffs in
the Farmers lawsuit in their capacity as the owners of ETS or
that they were awarded damages in that capacity.
22 We note that, at an early stage in the Farmers lawsuit, the
plaintiffs apparently recognized that the initial complaint and
the amended complaint were deficient insofar as those complaints
indicated that the allegations in support of their claims of
breaches of contract and fraudulent misrepresentations and in
support of the damages sought on account of those claims were
made solely by DCI, and not by the Diamonds, and they corrected
those deficiencies in the second amended complaint and in the
pretrial order.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011