Rickley v. Goodfriend
212 Cal. App. 4th 1136
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Neighbors litigated over dumping contaminated debris; judgment required remediation per plan.
- Funds for remediation placed in attorney trust; later disbursed contrary to plaintiffs’ interests.
- Plaintiffs sought to add civil conspiracy claims against the two attorney-defendants.
- Trial court allowed amendment; defendants appeal.
- Court held amendment proper because attorneys owed independent duties not to interfere with remediation or to disburse funds unfairly.
- Court analyzed applicability of litigation and attorney-client privileges and related procedural rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendment adding attorney-conspiracy claims was proper | Rickley argues for independent duties by attorneys | Defendants contend no valid conspiracy against attorneys | Yes; amendment proper under §1714.10(c) and independent duties. |
| Does the litigation privilege bar the conspiracy claims | Plaintiffs allege nonprivileged conduct | Privilege protects communications in litigation | No; privilege does not bar these conspiracy claims. |
| Does the attorney-client privilege apply to conspiracy claims | Claims rely on nonconfidential third-party conduct | Privilege shields confidential communications | No; claims based on nonconfidential acts with third parties. |
| Was the amendment permissible under CCP §473 | Amendment necessary to address independent duties | Amendment prejudicial or untimely | Yes; court did not abuse discretion. |
| Did attorney defendants owe independent legal duties to plaintiffs | Duty not to interfere with remediation; duty to disburse fairly | No independent duties beyond client representation | Yes; two independent duties owed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doctors’ Co. v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.3d 39 (Cal. 1989) (establishes agent immunity and attorney duties; conspiracy allowed under independent duties)
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006) ( litigation privilege extended to postjudgment context; communicative acts favored)
- Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 188 Cal.App.4th 189 (Cal. App. 2010) (section 1714.10 limits; exceptions for independent duties)
- Pavicich v. Santucci, 85 Cal.App.4th 382 (Cal. App. 2000) (independent duty to nonclients; plaintiff claims against attorneys)
- Burtscher v. Burtscher, 26 Cal.App.4th 720 (Cal. App. 1994) (attorney conduct beyond normal services may create liability)
- Central Concrete Supply Co. v. Bursak, 182 Cal.App.4th 1092 (Cal. App. 2010) (analysis of §1714.10 procedural gatekeeping and exceptions)