Rickley

Rickley v. Goodfriend

Good Law
151 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 32·212 Cal. App. 4th 1136
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 16, 2013No. B236180California13,354 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mallano, J.

In this dispute between next-door neighbors, plaintiffs prevailed in a prior action, establishing that their neighbor had unlawfully dumped contaminated debris on their property. Judgment was entered for plaintiffs. The judgment required the neighbor to remove the debris pursuant to a court-approved remediation plan. The funds for the remediation plan were placed in the trust account of the neighbor’s attorneys. The neighbor failed to remove the contaminated debris, and the attorneys disbursed the funds in a manner contrary to plaintiffs’ interest in remediating the debris on their property. Plaintiffs then filed this action, alleging that the neighbor and his wife had not complied with the prior judgment, resulting in a continuing nuisance.

*1141 After filing the original complaint in this case, plaintiffs sought to add causes of action for civil conspiracy against the neighbors’ attorneys on the ground the attorneys had conspired with their clients, the neighbor-defendants, to interfere with the court-approved remediation plan and to disburse the funds from the trust account so as to avoid remediating the contaminated debris on plaintiffs’ property. The trial court…

Dissenting Opinion

Rothschild, J.

The majority opinion directly conflicts with the leading Supreme Court precedent in this area, Doctors’ Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 39 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 183 , 775 P.2d 508 ] (.Doctors’ Co.). As a result, the majority opinion not only reaches the wrong result in this case but also introduces confusion and uncertainty into this area of the law. I therefore respectfully dissent.

*1167 In order to allege a legally valid claim for an attorney-client conspiracy under Doctors’ Co., plaintiffs must allege either (1) that the attorney-defendants acted “in furtherance of [their] own financial gain” (other than the earning of attorney fees) or (2) that the attorney-defendants violated their “own duty to the plaintiff[s].” (Doctors’ Co., supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 46-7.) In contrast, if the attorney-defendants acted not for their own financial advantage but merely as agents of the neighbor-defendants, and if the attorney-defendants violated no duty they owed to plaintiffs (but rather assisted the neighbor-defendants in violating their duties), then the conspiracy claim fails as a matter of law. “A cause of action for civil conspiracy may not arise ... if the alleged conspirator, though…

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.