Whatley

De Luca v. Whatley

Good Law
117 Cal. Rptr. 63·1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 1250·42 Cal. App. 3d 574
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 27, 1974Civ. 43006California325 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kaus, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment (order of dismissal) which followed the trial court’s sustaining of defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s first amended complaint.

Facts Alleged

Defendant Roden is an attorney and the partner, of the other defendants. On July 7th and 8th, 1970, Roden represented one Gattis at a preliminary hearing which followed a complaint charging Gattis and one Manley with murder; Gattis was also suspected of robbery. After the People had rested their case Roden decided to call witnesses on behalf of his client Gattis. Knowing that plaintiff De Luca was “possibly a suspect in the charge of robbery and murder, for which . . . Gattis, was charged, and having such knowledge failed to exercise his duty and due care, as an attorney, in failing to advise plaintiff of possible criminal prosecution and by allowing the plaintiff to become involved and ultimately become charged with the crime of conspiracy, murder and robbery” Roden called plaintiff as a witness without interviewing him and, therefore “failed to call the plaintiff as a good faith witness,” thereby placing him in a position “that caused him detrimental harm and injury.” In fact, whether or not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.