arrow left
arrow right
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
						
                                

Preview

LAWRENCE D. MILLER, SBN 77448 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER Post Office Box 6107 WN San Mateo, CA 94403 Supe cotpiscer WY Telephone: (650) 592-9151 MAR 04 2020 Imiller@ldmlawyer.com LL A Jake Chatter Attorney for Defendant, Robin Calder Ser Execu rend tive era, Officer & Clerk DeLn t WN DB NY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Oo IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER So 10 TODD HENRY JARVIS, Case No. S-CV-0039929 11 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 12 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF V. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 13 PLEADINGS AND IN THE ROBIN ELIZABETH CALDER etc., ALTERNATIVE FOR AN ORDER 14 BIFURCATING TRIAL 15 Defendant. Date: March 27, 2020 16 Time: 8:30 Dept: 31 17 Complaint Filed: August 23, 2017 18 Trial Date: April 27, 2020 19 Defendant submits the following points and authorities in support of her motion for judgment on 20 the pleadings without leave to amend and, in the alternative, if the motion is denied or leave to amend 21 the Complaint is granted, for an order the trialof the issue of whether an attorney-client relationship 22 existed between Plaintiff and Defendant prior to August 12, 2004 precede the trial of any other issue or 23 any part thereof in the case. 24 I. INTRODUCTION 23 A. The Complaint is Unverified. 26 The Complaint includes the Third Cause of Action to quiet titleto specific real property but is 2 unverified. (Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice.) A complaint to quiet titlemust be verified, and if 28 -|- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES not verified is subject to a judgment in favor of the Defendant. NO B. The Complaint Alleges an Attorney-Client Relationship which Defendant Denies. A Determination that an Attorney-Client Relationship Did Not Exist Will Eliminate the WOW Necessity of Further Trial and in the Alternative Substantially Reduce the Issues to be Tried. Re The Complaint consists of seven causes of action, all of which rely in whole or in part on the OHO existence of an attorney-client relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant prior to the purchase Don by Plaintiff and Defendant of the property at 1869 Park Avenue, San Jose, California (hereafter “the NY property”). Oa The property was purchased in the names of Plaintiff and Defendant, as joint tenants. The deed Co to the property was recorded on August 12, 2004. (Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice.) SE OS If the Court determines that an attorney-client relationship did not exist, then all,and ifnot all, hl KF then most of the remaining issues will be eliminated. To conserve judicial resources and to save the PPh NY parties’ time and expense the issue of whether or not an attorney-client relationship existed between the WY Plaintiff and the Defendant ought to be bifurcated and tried first. Fe FF Il. APPLICABLE LAW non FF A. A Complaint to Quiet Title Must be Verified. Judgment Ought to be Entered for the KH Defendant to an Unverified Complaint to Quiet Title. A complaint which alleges a cause of action to quiet titlemust be verified. (Code of Civil FF won Procedure, § 761.020.) Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action, entitled “Quiet Title” alleges, in pertinent part: Ff OO “Plaintiff is the sole and true owner of that real property commonly known as YF 1869 Park Ave., San Jose, CA 95126 and described more fully in paragraph 10 of this OD Complaint, such property being the “Subject Property.” YN Plaintiff's request for relief (the prayer the Complaint) seeks at page 15, line 22 of the NV KF Complaint: NH NV WOW “1. For an order quieting titlein the subject property in the name of plaintiff Todd NV Henry Jarvis.” BRP NN A complaint which seeks to quiet title to real property that is unverified is subject to a motion for UN NY a judgment on the pleadings. “Where the complaint must be verified and isnot, itmay be stricken on NBO To Comply., 4 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Plead § 468 (2008)). NO motion.” (6. [§ 468]Effect of Failure NO In Hearst v. Hart the defendant filed an unverified answer to a verified complaint. The Supreme Oo NO -2- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Court, quoting from McCullough v. Clark, 41 Cal. 298, stated: In McCullough v. Clark, 41 Cal. 298, itis said, ‘Ifthe answer of the defendant was not NWN properly verified, the plaintiff should have moved in the court below either to strike out the answer, or for judgment as for want of an answer.’ WY RR (Hearst v. Hart (1900) 128 Cal. 327, 328.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be filed at any time, including during trial. The NN Court may permit a motion for judgment on the pleadings to be heard later than 30 days after the date DN the case was initially set for trial. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 438(e).) YN CO A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be made before a pretrial conference order is entered or at least 30 days before the trialdate, whichever is later, unless ajudge Co otherwise permits. CCP § 438(e). The statute does not impose a “good cause” requirement for a later filing or specify any limitations on ajudge's power to permit a 10 later filing. Burnett vChimney Sweep (2004) 123 CA4th 1057, 1063, 20 CR3d 562. 11 A judge may permit a motion for judgment on the pleadings to be made at any time before, or even during,trial. Stoops v Abbassi (2002) 100 CA4th 644, 650, 122 CR2d 12 747. See Noble v Draper (2008) 160 CA4th 1, 15-16, 73 CR3d 3 (judge properly granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings made on first day of trial with respect 13 to one cause of action for which plaintiffs had no evidence, as their attorney 14 acknowledged). (Emphasis added.) 15 (1. [§ 12.153]In General:, Cal. Judges Benchbook Civ. Proc. Before Trial § 12.153.) The Court in Stoops v. Abbassi, cited by the California Judges Benchbook, supra, stated: 16 17 “A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trialitself. [Citation.]” (Jon Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 18 868, 877, 168 Cal.Rptr. 361.) 19 (Stoops v.Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650, as modified (Aug. 7, 2002).) Code of Civil Procedure, § 761.020 provides, in pertinent part: “The complaint shall be 20 verified and shall include all of the following: ....” The Complaint is required to be verified 21 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 761.020. The Complaint, like the answer in Hearst v Hart, supra, 22 128 Cal. at p. 328, isnot verified and is therefore subject to this motion for judgment on the pleadings. 23 Subject to the Court’s discretion to permit the hearing on the motion for judgment on the pleadings and 24 the Court’s discretion to allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, judgment ought to be entered in 25 favor of the Defendant. 26 If the Court grants Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended verified complaint, Code of Civil 27 Procedure, § 761.020 provides, in pertinent part: The complaint shall be verified . ..”, (Emphasis 28 ~§ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES added.) Thus, a complaint which includes a cause of action to quiet titlemust be verified. Plaintiff's counsel’s offer during the meet and confer process to verify only the Third Cause of Action would not WN comply with Code of Civil Procedure, § 761.020. WwW EE B. Plaintiff’s Complaint Relies on, and the Defendant Denies, an Alleged Attorney- client Relationship Existed Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. If Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is Denied, in Whole or in Part, or if Plaintiff isallowed to DN Amend the Complaint, then Bifurcation of the Issue of the Whether an Attorney-Client Relationship Existed Between the Plaintiff and Defendant Will Conserve Judicial Resources and Save the Parties Unnecessary Expense. NY The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy Oo and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, no later than the close of pretrial oOo conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trialof any issue or any part thereof shall 10 precede the trialof any other issue or any part thereof in the case, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5.... 11 (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.) 12 An early determination of the existence or nonexistence of an attorney-client relationship 13 between Plaintiff and Defendant at the time transactions that are the subject of this action took place 14 will, if an attorney-client relationship is found not to have existed, will likely result in a termination of 15 this action. At a minimum, a finding that an attorney-client relationship did not exist will narrow the 16 issues thereby precluding evidence of the alleged damages arising from the alleged attorney-client 17 relationship, and thereby conserving judicial resources and saving the parties time and expense. 18 The Complaint alleges: 19 That Defendant was at all times alleged in the complaint a practicing attorney licensed to 20 practice law in the state of California. (Complaint 1:23-25.) 21 That Plaintiff retained Defendant in early 2000s” (Complaint 2:13.) 22 Defendant provided Plaintiff with legal services and that Defendant violated her professional and 23 ethical duties. (Complaint 2:13-26.) 24 That during 2004, as part of Defendant’s legal representation Defendant recommended Plaintiff 25 sell Plaintiff's Houston, Texas property and invest in property in Silicon Valley. (Complaint 3:7-10.) 26 On or around August 12, 2004, Plaintiff purchased the Subject Property. (Complaint 4:3.) The 27 subject property was defined as the property commonly known as 1869 Park Avenue, San Jose, 28 -4- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES California 95126.” (Complaint 3:16.) That Defendant created conflicts of interest that required proper disclosures. (Complaint 5:4-28, NWN 6:26-27; 7:2-6.) WwW The First Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duties relies on the alleged attorney-client relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant and Defendant’s alleged conflicts of interest, failure to NHN make proper disclosures and breach of her professional and ethical duties. (Complaint 7:10-8:3.) The Second Cause of Action alleges Unfair Business Practices and relies on the alleged attorney- client relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated then California Oo Rules of Conduct, Rules 3-310, 3-500, 3-700 (subsequently renumbered) and B&P § 6068(m) “and Co 10 other applicable code sections and law”. (Complaint 8:12-13; 8:17-9:6.) ll The Third Cause of Action to Quiet Title relies on the alleged attorney-client relationship 12 between Plaintiff and Defendant. (Complaint 9:22-23; 10:10-20.) 13 The Fourth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief relies on the alleged attorney-client 14 relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant. (Complaint 11:9-10; 11:19-24.) 15 The Fifth Cause of Action for Injunctive Relief relies on the alleged attorney-client relationship 16 between Plaintiff and Defendant. (Complaint 12:9-10.) 17 The Sixth Cause of Action relies on the alleged attorney-client relationship between Plaintiff and 18 Defendant. (Complaint 13:4-5; 13-20.) 19 The Seventh Cause of Action for Rescission relies on the alleged attorney-client relationship 20 between Plaintiff and Defendant. (Complaint 14:16-17; 14:27-15:6.) 21 The Defendant disputes the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Plaintiff and 22 Defendant prior to August 12, 2004. (Declaration of Robin Calder.) 23 The early determination of the existence or nonexistence of an attorney-client relationship, if 24 found not to exist, will conserve judicial resources by eliminating the time consuming evidentiary issues 25 of Defendant’s alleged failure to comply with the Rules of Professional Responsibility and Plaintiff's 26 alleged remedies. 27 ‘Code of Civil Procedure section 598 was adopted in 1963 as the result of Judicial Council recommendations. Its objective isavoidance of the waste of time and money © 28 caused by the unnecessary trialof damage questions in cases where the liability issue is -5- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES resolved against the plaintiff. (17th Biennial Report, Judicial Council (1959) p. 30; 18th Biennial Report (1961) pp. 56—S57; 19th Biennial Report (1963) p. 32; see also Committee on Adm. of Justice Report, 36 St.Bar J. p. 416 (1961).)’ WN (Horton v. Jones (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 952, 955.) WwW Plaintiff relies on the alleged attorney-client relationship, essentially alleging defendant procured RR titleto the subject property by undue influence in violation of the Rules of the State Bar of California. WN Absent the alleged attorney-client relationship, all, ifnot most, of Plaintiff's Causes of Action DO will fail.To conserve judicial resources and to conserve the witnesses and parties time and expense, it is YN appropriate to try the issue of the existence of an attorney-client relationship before the remaining issues, Oo Ill. CONCLUSION So Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action seeks to quiet titleto the Property. However, the complaint is 10 unverified. Consequently, judgment in favor of Defendant ought to be entered. 11 Plaintiff's First through the Seventh Causes of Action rely, either in whole or in part, on the 12 existence of an attorney-client relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Ifan attorney-client 13 relationship is found not to have existed the remaining issues will be eliminated, or at aminimum, 14 substantially reduced. Therefore, the issue of the existence of an attorney-client relationship ought to be 15 bifurcated and tried before other issues. 16 For the reasons set forth above Defendant respectfully submits that Defendant’s motion ought to 17 be granted, that judgment on the unverified Complaint ought to be entered in Defendant’s favor and, in 18 the alternative, Plaintiff be ordered to file an amended verified complaint, that Defendant be given 19 sufficient time to file a responsive pleading thereto, the trial date be vacated and in the further alternative 20 that the issue of the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Plaintiff and the Defendant be 21 bifurcated and tried before the other issues. 22 23 2020 Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 2, 24 25 Ruranes D VL LAWRENCE D. MILLER 26 Attorney for Defendant, Robin Calder 27 28 -6- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES