Stueve v. Berger Kahn
222 Cal. App. 4th 327
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- This is an appeal from an Orange County Superior Court order granting a Civil Code section 1714.10 motion to strike conspiracy allegations in a dispute involving the Stueve heirs and attorneys tied to a purported Ponzi scheme.
- The second amended complaint named Attorney Berger Kahn and others, including Attorneys Novell and Allen, and alleged multiple claims such as fraud, fiduciary breach, and RICO against Berger Kahn.
- Berger Kahn moved to strike conspiracy claims under Civil Code section 1714.10, arguing the plaintiffs failed to obtain court permission to file those allegations.
- The trial court granted the motion to strike conspiracy allegations, finding 1714.10 inapplicable and, separately, sustained demurrers to some and granted others with/without leave to amend.
- The appellate case discusses whether section 1714.10 applies when alleged conspiracies arise from asset transfers and estate-planning activities, not necessarily from a contested claim or dispute.
- The court ultimately reverses, holding that 1714.10 is inapplicable based on the plain language of subdivision (a), and orders the Stueves to recover costs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1714.10 applies to conspiracies arising from non-litigation activities | Stueves: statute governs conspiracy claims arising from contesting/compromising a claim. | Berger Kahn: § 1714.10 applies beyond litigation contexts as a gatekeeping tool. | Inapplicable; plain text excludes non-litigation conspiracies. |
| If § 1714.10 applies, whether any exceptions apply to the conspiracy claims | Stueves contend exceptions (subd. (c)) may cover some pleaded conspiracies. | Berger Kahn: exceptions should apply only if § 1714.10 covers the claims, which it does not. | Not reached; § 1714.10 inapplicable, so exceptions unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc., 131 Cal.App.4th 802 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (gatekeeping function of § 1714.10; requires reasonable probability to file)
- Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 188 Cal.App.4th 189 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (discussion of § 1714.10's reach and pleading requirements)
- Pavicich v. Santucci, 85 Cal.App.4th 382 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (analysis involving § 1714.10, subdivision (c) considerations)
- Evans v. Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, 65 Cal.App.4th 599 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (concerning investor disputes and attorney conduct in disputes)
- Schubert v. Reynolds, 95 Cal.App.4th 100 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (statutory construction: give meaning to all parts of a statute)