Ward

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained Kramer’s demurrer without leave to amend. We “examine the operative complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.” (T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2017) 4 Cal.5th 145, 162.)

I. Civil Code Section 1714.10 Does Not Apply

Kramer contends both of plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred because they did not comply with Civil Code section 1714.10. This statute limits “a party’s right to sue an attorney for conspiring with his or her client.” (Central Concrete Supply Co., Inc. v. Bursak (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1095.) A plaintiff must obtain “prefiling court-approval” before filing an action subject to the statute. (Ibid.) “The purpose of the statute is to ‘discourage frivolous claims that an attorney conspired with his or her client to harm another. Therefore, rather than requiring the attorney to defeat the claim by showing it is legally meritless, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing before being allowed to assert the claim.’ ” (MMM Holdings, Inc. v. Reich (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 167, 186.) We begin…