In March 2012, plaintiff Gregory Vander Zanden, a commercial glazier in his 50s, and his wife, plaintiff Jody Vander Zanden, a homemaker in her 50s, met with Joey Laub, an attorney, to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Vander Zandens were previously defrauded by a loan restructuring company when they were told not to pay their mortgages on their homes in San Jose and South Lake Tahoe, which caused the homes to be in default. As a result, the banks were set to proceed with foreclosure, and the foreclosure sale was set for March 29, 2012. The Vander Zandens subsequently sought out Laub & Laub Attorneys at Law to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy to save their homes from foreclosure. In November 2012, the Vander Zandens’ San Jose home was sold at auction and the Vander Zandens were evicted. A new attorney then substituted into the case in January 2013, and the Vander Zandens Lake Tahoe home was foreclosed upon in February 2013. The Vander Zandens sued Laub & Laub Attorneys at Law, Joey Laub; Joey Laub’s father, another attorney, Melvin Laub; and attorneys Denise Rocha and Jennifer Tachera. The Vander Zandens alleged that the actions of Joey Laub and the firm of Laub & Laub constituted legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, misrepresentation, and infliction of emotional distress relating to the mishandling of their Chapter 13 bankruptcy. They also alleged that Melvin Laub was liable under a theory of ostensible partnership liability, claiming that Melvin Laub was liable for all claims on the basis that he was included on the firm’s advertisements, commercials, websites, and phone book ads. Rocha and Tachera were ultimately let out of the case. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that on March 28, 2012, Laub & Laub filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy skeleton petition on behalf of the Vander Zandens to stop the immediate foreclosure of the homes knowing that a petition would need to be supplemented. However, the bankruptcy court immediately issued a notice of incomplete filing, listing documents that would need to be received by the clerk’s office or else the petition would be dismissed. Subsequently, the bankruptcy trustee filed a motion to dismiss the case on May 1, 2012, after not receiving the documents. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Laub & Laub did not oppose the motion to dismiss, so the motion was granted. Counsel further contended that although Laub & Laub filed a motion to set aside the dismissal, the motion was opposed by the trustee and denied by the court. The Vander Zandens claimed they became aware of the firm based on commercials, the firm’s website, print advertisements, and billboards showing Melvin Laub and Joey Laub as a father-and-son law firm. However, they conceded that they had never met Melvin Laub, never spoke with him, and never corresponded with him and that Melvin Laub never represented them at any hearing. In spite of this, The Vander Zandens contended that they reasonably believed that Melvin Laub was a partner of the firm and assumed that he was overseeing the work of Joey Laub. The plaintiffs’ bankruptcy expert testified as to the standard of care of a bankruptcy attorney. Defense counsel contended that Laub & Laub repeatedly requested the necessary documents from the Vander Zandens, but the Vander Zandens did not provide all of the documents the bankruptcy court requested. As a result, the bankruptcy trustee filed a motion to dismiss the case on May 1, 2012. Defense counsel noted that after the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the Vander Zandens opened a Wells Fargo bank account to receive funds that they anticipated receiving from a Hilton Hotel project, which the Vander Zandens’ company, Bay Area Glass, was working on, and that on June 8, 2012, the Vander Zandens deposited a check for $78,034.60. Counsel argued that the Wells Fargo account was not disclosed to Laub & Laub, so when Laub & Laub filed a second petition on behalf of the Vander Zandens on June 11, 2012, the bankruptcy court filed a notice the next day stating that the petition was incomplete and subject to dismissal unless certain documents were received by the bankruptcy court clerk. Counsel contended that unlike with the first petition, a second petition operates as an automatic stay of foreclosure against any listed assets for 30 days, so Laub & Laub did not file a motion to have this stay extended and filed a summary of schedules with the bankruptcy court on June 26, 2012. One of the schedules listed the Vander Zandens’ U.S. Bank account, but not the Wells Fargo account, which was still not known to Laub & Laub. Defense counsel maintained that as a result, on July 24, 2012, Laub & Laub filed a first amended Chapter 13 plan, which proposed that the Vander Zandens pay $6,552.25 per month to the trustee for five years. Defense counsel contended that as a result, the Vander Zandens complained via email to Laub & Laub’s paralegal, “If they wish us to pay $6,600 per month, we are wondering what we are supposed to eat and pay other bills with.” However, counsel asserted that during the month of July 2012, the Vander Zandens deposited $81,948.33 into the Wells Fargo bank account, which they continued to conceal from the defendants, and then withdrew $15,775.69 in ATM cash withdrawals during the month of July. Defense counsel also contended that the Vander Zandens’ bank records showed that they made at least five separate trips to casinos, spending thousands of dollars. (However, the Vander Zandens claimed that they never disclosed to Laub & Laub that they were spending money at casinos and that they were only entertaining clients, not gambling.) On Sept. 13, 2012, Laub & Laub filed a motion to confirm the Vander Zandens’ Chapter 13 plan, and the matter was set for a hearing on Oct. 30, 2012. However, defense counsel contended that the trustee opposed the plan on Oct. 16, 2012 on the basis that it asked the Vander Zandens for copies of certain documents and had not received them and, therefore, it was unable to determine if the Vander Zandens’ business was solvent and necessary for reorganization. As a result, the court denied the plan, at the request of the trustee. As to the alleged liability of Melvin Laub, defense counsel argued that there were insufficient facts to demonstrate Melvin Laub was an ostensible partner of the firm and that it was not reasonable for a client in the Vander Zandens’ position to believe that Melvin Laub was a partner of the firm. Counsel contended that Melvin Laub was 78 years old in 2012 and maintained a business card at the firm’s front desk stating that he was retired. Specifically, although the Vander Zandens claimed they saw television and print advertisements for Melvin Laub that induced them to come to the law firm, thinking he would be overseeing their case, defense counsel argued that the Vander Zandens could not have relied on the commercial advertisements, as the commercials were made and aired on television after the time the Vander Zandens retained the law firm. Further, counsel contended that the Vander Zandens had never met or communicated with Melvin Laub. As to the liability of Joe Laub and Laub & Laub, defense counsel contended that the Vander Zandens’ own misconduct cut off causation and that there were no recoverable damages. Specifically, defense counsel argued, via the Vander Zandens’ bank records, that the Vander Zandens concealed from the defendants a bank account that proved they were earning in excess of $80,000 per month during their bankruptcy. Counsel also argued that, based on bank transactions and thousands of dollars of ATM cash withdrawals occurring at or around the same time that the Vander Zandens made purchases with their bank cards while at casinos, the Vander Zandens had a gambling addiction, as they were spending, at times, in excess of $15,000 per month at casinos. Defense counsel filed a motion in limine on the first day of trial to allow him to take the deposition of the plaintiffs’ bankruptcy expert on the standard of care. The motion was granted by the court. As a result, the plaintiffs’ expert testified in a deposition, which occurred during the midst of trial, that a bankruptcy court would not confirm a Chapter 13 plan if the Vander Zandens were gambling substantial amounts of money regularly. The deposition testimony was then read into the record at trial as an impeachment when the plaintiffs’ expert tried to contradict his own prior testimony., The Vander Zandens claimed that as a result of the defendants’ alleged mishandling of the bankruptcy, they lost the equity in their San Jose and Lake Tahoe vacation homes, collectively valued at approximately $765,000. They also claimed that the alleged mishandling of the bankruptcy caused Mr. Vander Zanden to lose his commercial glass business on the basis that the mishandling negatively impacted his credit score, resulting in the business closing down and precluding him from obtaining future contracts. They alleged that as a result, they suffered business losses of approximately $1.7 million. The Vander Zandens further claimed that the loss of their homes caused stress to Ms. Vander Zanden and exacerbated her pre-existing medical conditions. Thus, the Vander Zandens sought recovery of $2.7 million in total damages.