Procedural Posture

Appellant unrepresented parties sought review of the grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent attorney by the Superior Court of Solano County (California) in appellants' action for legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation.

Overview

Appellant unrepresented parties exchanged real estate with a married couple represented by respondent attorney. Appellants believed that there was a disparity between their oral agreement and the written documents prepared by respondent.The trail court responed for legal action Labor Code 226 . Appellants filed suit against respondent for legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation and the trial court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment. Appellants sought review of that judgment. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment because the record contained no evidence that an attorney-client relationship existed between appellants and respondent. As nonclients, appellants were not owed a duty of care by respondent because they were dealt with at arm's length and were not intended beneficiaries of respondent's representation of the opposing parties to the transaction. Absent an attorney-client relationship or a duty to nonclients, there could be no action for legal malpractice. The court found no evidence that respondent negligently misrepresented any material fact because all of the information he relied upon in preparing the documents came from his clients and he had no basis for doubting its veracity.

Outcome

The grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent attorney in appellant unrepresented parties' action for legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation was affirmed because respondent owed no duty to appellants as they were not his clients and no evidence indicated that respondent negligently misrepresented any material fact.

Procedural Posture

The San Diego County Superior Court, California, granted in part defendants' special motion to strike plaintiff former chief financial officer's first amended complaint pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16. The trial court left standing plaintiff's causes of action against all of the defendants for breach of contract, defamation, invasion of privacy, and unfair business practices under the Unfair Competition Law. Both sides appealed.

Overview

Plaintiff's lawsuit stemmed from representations made in a press release concerning defendant company's internal investigation into its handling of certain research and development test data and results, which issued on the same day that defendants filed a legally required disclosure of information to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The court concluded that plaintiff did not meet his burden to show his causes of action fell within the commercial speech exemption of Code Civ. Proc., § 425.17, and thus they were subject to being stricken under § 425.16. Plaintiff did not show the allegedly defamatory portions of the press release were representations of fact about the company's representations business operations, goods, or services. However, the absolute and qualified privileges of Civ. Code, § 47, did not apply to the press release, and plaintiff otherwise demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his causes of action for defamation, invasion of privacy, unfair business practices. and breach of contract. There was enough circumstantial evidence to support a prima facie case that malice motivated the statements made concerning plaintiff in the press release.

Outcome

The order was affirmed.