Yanez v. Plummer
221 Cal. App. 4th 180
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Yanez sued Union Pacific for wrongful discharge and sued Plummer for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud.
- Union Pacific fired Yanez for dishonesty based on a discrepancy between a witness statement and a deposition answer in Garcia v. Union Pacific under FELA.
- Plummer, as in-house counsel, represented both Union Pacific and Yanez at Garcia’s deposition.
- Yanez had two witness statements about Garcia’s accident; the second stated he saw Garcia slip and fall, the first did not.
- Disciplinary proceedings and termination followed, based on the contradiction between statements and deposition testimony.
- Court reversed summary judgment, concluding a triable issue exists that but for Plummer’s conduct, Yanez would not have been terminated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation in a multi-cause malpractice suit | Yanez argues Plummer's conduct was a substantial factor in termination | Plummer contends his conduct did not cause termination; Yanez’s termination would have occurred anyway | Triable issue of causation; reversal of summary judgment |
| Conflict of interest and representation without consent | Concurrent representation violated rules and harmed Yanez | Conflict rules do not by themselves prove malpractice or fiduciary breach | Conflict evidence supports malpractice/fiduciary breach but not dispositive; triable issue |
| Proper application of summary judgment standard on causation | Evidence shows but-for causation via deposition conduct | Cosntruction of evidence insufficient for triable issue | Issue for jury; not decided as a matter of law |
| Effect of Plummer’s deposition tactics on Yanez’s termination | Plummer manipulated deposition to cast Yanez in worst light | No improper conduct; standard practice to question statements | Triable issue; Plummer’s role raises material facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ishmael v. Millington, 241 Cal.App.2d 520 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966) (causation issues for legal malpractice; issues for jury)
- Viner v. Sweet, 30 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 2003) (but-for and substantial factor causation principles in multi-factor harm)
- Mayes v. Bryan, 139 Cal.App.4th 1075 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (causation standard in multi-cause scenarios)
- Shively v. Dye Creek Cattle Co., 29 Cal.App.4th 1620 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (summary judgment review and factual triable issues)
- Rio Linda Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.App.4th 732 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (summary judgment standard; record review)
- Flait v. North American Watch Corp., 3 Cal.App.4th 467 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (summary judgment evidence rules)
- BGJ Associates v. Wilson, 113 Cal.App.4th 1217 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (professional conduct rules; effect on liability)
- Ishmael v. Millington, 241 Cal.App.2d 520 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966) (causation issues for malpractice)