Chamberlin v. Hartog, Baer & Hand, APC
3:19-cv-08243
| N.D. Cal. | May 11, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Christopher Chamberlin (pro se) sued his former law firm Hartog, Baer & Hand, APC (HBH) and partners Baer, Hartog, and Hand, alleging nondisclosure of a conflict involving adverse probate-party/executor Michael Levin (a relative) and attenuated ties between Levin family members and defendants.
- Chamberlin retained HBH after being allegedly assured there were no conflicts and paid a retainer; HBH represented him in probate litigation to remove the executor but the petition failed and appellate issues (including a missed deadline) ensued.
- Chamberlin alleges HBH prioritized the Levin interest, asserting claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty/duty of loyalty, intentional and negligent legal malpractice, and seeks a declaratory judgment voiding the retainer and disgorgement of fees.
- Defendants moved to dismiss and to strike portions of the complaint; Chamberlin moved for partial summary judgment declaring the retainer void for conflict.
- The court dismissed all claims except negligent malpractice as to HBH, Baer, and Hartog (claims dismissed with leave to amend), denied partial summary judgment, and struck punitive damages as to the remaining negligence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraudulent inducement (concealment) | HBH assured no conflict; concealed an attenuated Levin relationship that induced retention | Complaint fails to plead who made the assurance, actual knowledge, or intent to defraud; fails Rule 9(b) particularity | Dismissed w/ leave to amend: plaintiff must plead who/when/what and show defendants’ actual knowledge/intent and duty to disclose |
| Breach of fiduciary duty / duty of loyalty | Defendants put Levin interests over Chamberlin’s, breaching duties | Claims rest on same deficient conflict theory and lack adequate factual showing of knowledge or disloyalty | Dismissed w/ leave to amend for same pleading defects |
| Intentional legal malpractice / punitive damages | Alleged intentional misconduct in service of Levin interest; seeks punitive relief | California treats malpractice as negligence-based; punitive damages require clear-and-convincing showing of malice/ fraud/ oppression | Intentional-malpractice claim dismissed w/ leave to amend (may replead intentional theory); punitive damages stricken as to negligence claim |
| Negligent malpractice (including whether Hand is liable) | HBH, Baer, Hartog committed professional negligence; HBH/Hand may have overseen work | Plaintiff fails to allege Hand’s personal involvement; negligence claims against Baer, Hartog, HBH survive | Negligent malpractice claim survives as to HBH, Baer, Hartog; claim against Hand dismissed w/ leave to amend |
| Declaratory judgment voiding retainer for conflict | Retainer is void as an undisclosed, unwaivable conflict tied to Levin family | Defendants deny knowledge; even under applicable professional rules the attenuated tie may not trigger disclosure/consent | Dismissed w/ leave to amend for failure to allege facts showing knowledge/duty; summary judgment denied |
| Partial summary judgment on declaratory claim | Chamberlin argues no genuine dispute: facts show conflict invalidating retainer | Defendants submitted declarations denying knowledge; genuine issue of fact exists and plaintiff’s evidence lacks admissible proof | Motion denied; claim also dismissed on pleading grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard governs Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (Rule 9(b) requires who/what/when/where/how for fraud)
- Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666 (fraud pleadings must specify times, dates, places, benefits received)
- Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10 (federal pleading rules do not require perfect statement of legal theory)
- Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo, 25 Cal.4th 1194 (elements of legal malpractice under California law)
- Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 178 Cal.App.4th 830 (elements for concealment-based fraudulent inducement)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)