O'Keefe

O'Keefe v. Kompa

Good Law
100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 602·2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 790·2000 Daily Journal DAR 11111·84 Cal. App. 4th 130·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8371
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 12, 2000No. G018844California1,798 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Crosby, J.

Plaintiff Thomas J. O’Keefe sued defendants for abuse of process and title disparagement after defendants initiated collection efforts on a judgment on appeal. That judgment was against O’Keefe personally and arose out of an earlier action he brought for attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717. The superior court sustained defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend, reasoning an undertaking was required under Code of Civil Procedure sections 916 and 917.1 to stay collection efforts pending appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I

In the underlying litigation, O’Keefe sought to recover $30,000 he was forced to pay as guarantor on a loan to a failed business entity. He also sought attorney fees based on a fee-shifting provision in the loan documents. Not only did O’Keefe lose that case, but also he was ordered to pay just over $50,000 for defendants’ attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717. O’Keefe appealed the judgment, including the attorney fees order, but posted no bond or undertaking (believing none was required). We subsequently affirmed.

While that appeal was pending, however, attorneys for the two subsets of the present defendants took…

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.