Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In a prior litigation, FLIR filed suit against their former employees for, among other things, misappropriation of trade secrets. After the former employees prevailed in the underlying action, they obtained a ruling that the misappropriation of trade secrets claim had been brought against them in bad faith, which resulted in an order that FLIR pay the former employees their attorney fees and costs in an amount exceeding $1.6 million. Thereafter, the former employees brought the instant malicious prosecution action against Latham, the attorneys who had represented FLIR in the underlying action. The trial court granted Latham's motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the so-called anti-SLAPP statute. The former employees principally contend that the interim adverse judgment rule does not preclude this malicious prosecution action because the trial court’s finding of bad faith after a bench trial in the underlying action negates its prior ruling denying summary judgment. The court concluded that this hindsight approach is inconsistent with a core principle of the interim adverse judgment rule - namely, that an interim ruling on the merits establishes probable cause in the underlying action, even though that ruling is later reversed by the trial court, a jury, or an appellate court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Parrish v. Latham & Watkins" on Justia Law

In a prior litigation, FLIR filed suit against their former employees for, among other things, misappropriation of trade secrets. After the former employees prevailed in the underlying action, they obtained a ruling that the misappropriation of trade secrets claim had been brought against them in bad faith, which resulted in an order that FLIR pay the former employees their attorney fees and costs in an amount exceeding $1.6 million. Thereafter, the former employees brought the instant malicious prosecution action against Latham, the attorneys who had represented FLIR in the underlying action. The trial court granted Latham's motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the so-called anti-SLAPP statute. The court reversed, agreeing with the former employees that Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 is not the appropriate statute of limitations for a malicious prosecution action, and that the former employees have presented sufficient evidence that they otherwise have a probability of prevailing. View "Parrish v. Latham & Watkins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged an order denying its motion to disqualify a law firm that substituted in to represent defendant approximately six months after one of the law firm’s attorneys served as a settlement officer in the case. In Cho v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeal held that when a judicial officer receives confidential information from a party while presiding over a settlement conference, and the judicial officer subsequently joins a law firm, that law firm may not represent an opposing party in the same action, regardless whether the law firm establishes screening procedures to prevent the former judicial officer from having any involvement with the case. The court held that the same standard applies when an attorney serves as a settlement officer in a mandatory settlement conference conducted by a judge and two volunteer attorneys. If the attorney receives confidential information from one of the parties to the action, that attorney’s law firm may not subsequently agree to represent an opposing party in the same action, regardless of the efficacy of the screening procedures established by the law firm. Because the trial court did not resolve the disputed factual question whether the attorney received confidential information while serving as a settlement officer, the court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings so the trial court can determine whether the attorney was privy to any confidential information. View "Castaneda v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that her attorneys negligently advised her to draw a check on an account that she owned but on which she was not a signatory and deposit the funds into another account she owned. Plaintiff alleged that doing so exposed her to a criminal forgery prosecution. The trial court sustained the attorneys' demurrer without leave to amend on the grounds that plaintiff bore unclean hands and failed to allege she had been found factually innocent of forgery. The court held that transferring one's own funds from one account to another cannot be the basis of a forgery prosecution absent intent to defraud, even if the transfer is effected by means of a false signature. In this case, plaintiff's criminal prosecution could not reasonably have been foreseen by defendants, and any damages she incurred defending against it were not caused by them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's decision based on a different ground. View "Kumaraperu v. Feldsted" on Justia Law

Leeman filed a private enforcement action under Health and Safety Code 25249.5 (Proposition 65), alleging that t Adams Extract & Spice failed to issue an adequate warning that its product contained a chemical identified on the Governor’s list “of those chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity .” A successful plaintiff in such an action is entitled to recover attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5. The parties settled shortly before trial, including a stipulated award of $72,500.00 for attorney fees and costs, incurred by Leeman. In confirming the settlement, the court modified the attorney fee amount by reducing it to $35,839.67. The court of appeal reversed. The trial court had the right to reject the settlement agreement in its entirety, and refuse to “approve the settlement” if the court determined that $72,500.00 was unfair or unreasonable, but lacked authority to modify any of the terms of the settlement agreement unilaterally, thus requiring the parties to accept a settlement to which they have not agreed. View "Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the attorneys who represented their adversaries in litigation over various financial transactions, alleging that the attorneys engaged in illegal conduct when they solicited and received confidential, privileged, and/or proprietary information from plaintiffs' former attorney and used that information in the litigation against plaintiffs. The trial court granted defendants' motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAP statute). The court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the complaint arose from protected First Amendment activity; there was insufficient evidence to show defendants' conduct was illegal as a matter of law; and plaintiffs did not show a probability of prevailing on their claims because the statute of limitations had run and the litigation privilege barred plaintiffs' claims. View "Bergstein v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan" on Justia Law

In 2010, Debra Hackett was seriously injured in an accident in Sacramento County in which a tractor and trailer owned by Silva Trucking, Inc. and driven by Elaine McDonold jackknifed and collided with the vehicle being driven by Hackett. In 2012, the Hacketts filed a personal injury action in Sacramento County against Silva Trucking and McDonold. The jury awarded the Hacketts $34.9 million in damages. Silva Trucking was insured by Carolina Casualty Insurance Company (CCIC), who retained the law firm Cholakian & Associates to provide a defense. Silva Trucking had an excess liability insurance policy with Lexington Insurance Company (LIC), who retained the law firm Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP (Lewis Brisbois) as counsel. In 2014, Silva Trucking and McDonold brought suit in Sacramento County against LIC, CCIC, Cholakian & Associates and individual attorneys Kevin Cholakian and Jennifer Kung (collectively Cholakian), and Lewis Brisbois and individual attorney Ralph Zappala (collectively Lewis Brisbois). As to LIC and CCIC, the complaint alleged bad faith and breach of contract. As to the law firms and attorneys, the complaint alleged legal malpractice. The gravamen of the complaint was that the insurers unreasonably refused to accept the policy limit demand when the insured’s liability was clear and damages were known to be in excess of the policy limit. The attorneys failed to advise their insurer clients to accept the demand and the consequences of failing to do so, and failed to advise Silva Trucking and McDonold of their need for personal counsel. LIC and CCIC responded with demurrers. Lewis Brisbois answered with a general denial and asserted 22 affirmative defenses. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 396b, subdivision (a), where an action has been filed in the “wrong venue,” a defendant may move to transfer the case to the “proper court for the trial thereof.” In such a case, “if an answer is filed,” the court may consider opposition to the motion to transfer and may retain the action in the county where filed to promote the convenience of witnesses or the ends of justice. The question this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review was whether, in a multi-defendant case, an answer must be filed by all defendants before the court may consider opposition to the motion to transfer venue. The Court concluded the answer was yes. In this case, the trial court considered opposition to the motion before all defendants had answered the complaint. Accordingly, the Court issued a preemptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to transfer and to issue a new order granting the motion. View "Cholakian & Assoc. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Attorney Novak represented Kelly between 2007 and 2012. The two executed a contingency attorney fee agreement that granted Novak lien rights over any settlement Kelly received. In 2011, Novak filed a probate petition which alleged Kelly was a pretermitted spouse of Teitler and negotiated a considerable settlement. The probate court approved the settlement which awarded Kelly a substantial interest in the Dana Teitler Trust. Kelly died. Novak filed suit to enforce the attorney lien in the 2007 fee agreement. The probate court denied the petition, holding that the proper procedure to recover fees was by claim against Kelly’s estate under section 9000; plaintiff was required to file a creditor’s claim within one year of Kelly’s death; the statute of limitations barred the claim; and section 5000(a), which provides a nonprobate transfer, was inapplicable. The court of appeal reversed. Novak had not forfeited a claim under section 9391, that he was an equitable lienholder and did not need to file a creditor’s claim in probate. An assignment provision in the settlement agreement in the event of Kelly’s death did not destroy Novak’s pre-existing attorney fee lien rights. View "Novak v. Fay" on Justia Law

Cypress sued, alleging that Maxim, had misappropriated a trade secret, or was in the process of doing so, by seeking to hire away specialists in touchscreen technology, a field in which Cypress and Maxim compete. Maxim responded that it was entitled to solicit prospective employment candidates in Cypress’s workforce and that there was no evidence it had acquired, or was seeking to acquire, any trade secret. After failing to secure temporary injunctive relief, and failing to obtain an order placing under seal evidence derived by Maxim from public sources, Cypress dismissed the action. The trial court awarded Maxim attorney fees under Civil Code 3426.4, which authorizes such an award to the prevailing party where a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets is found to have been made in bad faith. The court of appeal affirmed, stating that the finding of bad faith was amply supported by evidence that defendants did no more, and Cypress accused them of no more, than attempting to recruit the employees of a competitor. Cypress dismissed the suit to avoid an adverse determination on the merits. View "Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

The ACLU submitted a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request to Los Angeles County for invoices from any law firm in connection with nine lawsuits “brought by inmates involving alleged jail violence.” It also sought disclosure of service agreements between the County and two consultants and an “implementation monitor.” The County agreed to produce copies of the requested documents related to three lawsuits, which were no longer pending, with attorney-client privileged and work product information redacted. It declined to provide statements for the remaining lawsuits, which were still pending. It averred that the “detailed description, timing, and amount of attorney work performed, which communicates to the client and discloses attorney strategy, tactics, thought processes and analysis” were privileged and exempt from disclosure under Government Code 6254 (k), and 6255(a), and by Business and Professions Code 6149 and 6148. The superior court granted a writ of mandate insofar with respect to billing records, but denied the petition with respect to the agreement between the County and the implementation monitor. The court of appeal vacated, holding that because the CPRA expressly exempts attorney-client privileged communications, the tension must here be resolved in favor of the privilege. Because the invoices are confidential communications under Evidence Code 952, they are exempt from disclosure under Government Code 6254(k). View "Los Angeles Bd. Of Supervisors v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law