Plaintiff trustee sued defendants, three attorneys and their client, for malicious prosecution. The attorney defendants filed a special motion to strike the malicious prosecution suit pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16. The San Diego County Superior Court, California, denied the special motion to strike and awarded plaintiff $20,055 in attorney fees and costs. The attorney defendants appealed.
This case arose out of a probate matter involving the client's challenge of plaintiff's handling of a family trust. The court concluded that the attorney defendants' appeal was frivolous. The attorney defendants failed to provide a summary of significant facts limited to matters in the record. For example, the attorney defendants' opening brief omitted the most critical fact of the entire appeal: the trial ADA compliance defense attorneys found the client's petition for breach of trust and removal of plaintiff as trustee was filed and pursued in bad faith and for an improper purpose. The attorney defendants misrepresented the record and ignored established case law without explanation or justification. No competent attorney could conceivably believe in good faith the appeal had any merit. Because the appeal was totally and completely without merit, sanctions were appropriate. The court ordered the attorney defendants to pay plaintiff the amount of $52,727.56. The court also found sanctions should be paid to the clerk's office in the amount of $8,500, which was the approximate cost for processing this frivolous appeal.
The order denying the attorney defendants' special motion to strike was affirmed.
Plaintiff real estate investor and defendants, real estate firm and broker, filed a joint application, as part of a settlement, for stipulated reversal of a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which had ruled against defendants. The parties sought recall of remittitur where no extraordinary circumstances justifying denial of stipulated reversal existed, which would adversely affect public interest.
Plaintiff real estate investor possessed an unrecorded lien and defendants, real estate firm and broker, failed to tell the buyer of its existence and as a result, plaintiff lost his security interest in the property. The trial court held that defendant owed a duty to disclose the to the buyer the existence of the unrecorded lien. The parties then filed a joint stipulation, as part of a settlement, seeking the recall of the remittitur so that the court could issue another remittitur in line with the parties' intention. The court granted the joint application for recall of remittitur and reversed the judgment of the trial court, directing it to dismiss the action with prejudice as to defendant real estate firm. The court, however, denied request for defendant broker based on the public interest exception, holding that an appellate court should grant a request for stipulated reversal absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances warranting an exception. The court held that a judgment in a civil case could provide the basis for disciplinary action against defendant broker, and that to grant a reversal would mean impinging upon the agency regulating real estate licensees.
The joint application for recall of remittitur was granted and pursuant to the parties' stipulation for settlement, the judgment appealed from was reversed and the trial court was directed to dismiss the action with prejudice as to defendant real estate firm. The court denied the request for defendant broker based on the public interest exception and held that the judgment could provide a basis for a disciplinary action against him.
