Cortese

Cortese v. Sherwood

Bad Law
237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 108·26 Cal. App. 5th 445
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 31, 2018A152351California5,625 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Jones, J.

*111 Before a plaintiff may file a cause of action alleging an attorney engaged in a civil conspiracy with the attorney's client, Civil Code section 1714.10, subdivision (a) requires that plaintiff establish he or she has a reasonable probability of prevailing and obtain a prefiling order. 1 Here, we consider whether the statute applies to a claim against an attorney for participation in breach of trust. We conclude that, based on plaintiff Christina Cortese's allegations, and despite the absence of the language and label of "conspiracy," her cause of action must be construed as alleging a conspiracy between the attorney and his client. Plaintiff Cortese did not comply with the prefiling requirements of section 1714.10. Moreover, we conclude the attorney's alleged conduct does not fall within the statutory exceptions. Accordingly, the trial court should have sustained the attorney's demurrer to the cause of action.

Cortese's first amended petition alleges her stepfather, Robert A. Naify, breached fiduciary duties to her mother, Francesca P. Naify, and to Francesca's trust. 2 John M. Sherwood was Robert's attorney. Relying on section 1714.10, Sherwood demurred to Cortese's cause…

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.