Adams

Adams v. Superior Court

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 26·2 Cal. App. 4th 521·3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 49·92 Daily Journal DAR 236·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 238
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 7, 1992H008871California3,236 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elia, J.

Petitioners seek a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to sustain a demurrer to real party’s claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Petitioners Paul Adams, Scott Sommer, John Christian and Tobin & Tobin are attorneys who represent petitioners Duane and Amelia Wiseman in a civil action in Monterey County. The attorney petitioners are also the defendants in real party Vu’s lawsuit for abuse of process and malicious prosecution brought in Santa Clara County. The attorneys contend that (1) the refusal of the Santa Clara County Superior Court to sustain their demurrer to Vu’s tort lawsuit is incorrect, and (2) that requiring them to defend this lawsuit will materially interfere with their professional relationship with their clients, the Wisemans, in the Monterey County litigation. We agree with both contentions, for reasons we will state. We will issue the writ because potential destruction of the professional relationship between the Wisemans and their chosen counsel in ongoing litigation justifies interlocutory writ review. (See, e.g., Meadow v. Superior Court (1963) 59 Cal.2d 610, 616 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 824 , 381 P.2d 648 ]; Golden State Glass Corp. v.…

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.