Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2021-01223147, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Defendants, John C. Carpenter and Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley, LLP seek an order sustaining their demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Sixth Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Seventh Cause of Action for Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage, and Eighth Cause of Action for Tortious Interference With Contractual Relations asserted against Defendants in Plaintiffs' Complaint, without leave to amend.

Initially, the Complaint herein alleges that “On or about September 13, 2014, GROSSMAN engaged the services of NASO to represent his interests….” (Complaint ¶10.) NASO, as counsel for Grossman, filed an action in unlimited jurisdiction of Los Angeles Superior Court. (Id. ¶15.) Thereafter, on May 18, 2018, NASO associated in the trial firm of Gans & Rosenfeld, LLP (“G&R”) to assist in trial preparation. (Id. ¶¶2,18.) However, on May 7, 2019, NASO received a communication from defendants John C. Carpenter and Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley advising that they had been retained by Grossman to handle his claim and Plaintiffs had been discharged. (Id. ¶21.)

As to the fifth through eighth causes of action of Michael A. Naso, individually, and d/b/a Law Office of Michael A. Naso and Gans & Rosenfeld, LLP’s Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that after the underlying Grossman action settled and the settlement funds were deposited into Defendants’ trust account, Defendants failed to satisfy the lien claims of Plaintiffs. (See e.g., Complaint ¶81.)

Defendants argue that pursuant to Mojtahedi v. Vargas (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 974, the Court should sustain the present demurrer to the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Causes of Action asserted against Defendants in the Complaint, without leave to amend.

In Mojtahedi, the clients’ initial attorney could not enforce the lien in an action against the clients’ current attorney, who obtained a settlement payment for the clients, where the initial attorney failed to first file an independent action against the clients to establish the validity of the purported lien. (Mojtahedi v. Vargas (2014) 228 C.A.4th 974, 977.)

Notably, instead of opposing Defendants’ argument, Plaintiffs request that this Court stay the proceedings against moving Defendants until Plaintiffs obtain a judicial determination that they have a valid and enforceable attorney lien. However, Plaintiffs fail to cite to any authority enabling the Court to grant the relief requested.

Therefore, based on the authority presented by Defendants and Plaintiffs’ conceding of the merits thereof, the Demurrer is therefore SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Defendants to give notice.