Judge Robert B. Broadbelt, Case Number: 23STCV22065, Date: 2024-07-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV22065, Date: 2024-07-19 Tentative Ruling

The court considered the amended moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

The court did not consider the (1) “Supplemental Points and Authorities to: Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Rodriguez Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Declaration of Raj C. Gupta,” filed by plaintiff Raj Gupta on May 13, 2024, (2) “Notice of Declaration of Plaintiff Raj. C. Gupta in Support of His Opposition to Defendant Rodriguez Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,” filed by plaintiff Raj. Gupta on July 10, 2024, (3) “Notice of Exhibit List to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Rodriguez Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,” filed by plaintiff Raj. Gupta on July 10, 2024, and (4) “Notice of Exhibit List to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Rodriguez Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,” filed by plaintiff Raj. Gupta on July 12, 2024, because those papers were filed after the reply papers were filed, and are not authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

The court grants defendants Rodriguez Law Group, Inc., and Patricia R. Rodriguez’s requests for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Defendants Rodriguez Law Group, Inc., and Patricia Rodriguez (“Defendants”) move the court for an order granting their motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the first, second, and third causes of action alleged by plaintiff Raj C. Gupta (“Plaintiff”) in his Second Amended Complaint.

The court grants Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the first cause of action for professional negligence (legal malpractice) because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing a duty of care owed by Defendants to Plaintiff in connection with their filing of the Third Amended Complaint in the underlying case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (b)(1)(B)(ii); Akhlaghpour v. Orantes (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 232, 254-255 [elements of cause of action for legal malpractice].)

In connection with his first cause of action, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants breached their duty of care to Plaintiff by failing to allege a cause of action for fraud in the Third Amended Complaint in the underlying case (Case No. 19STCV02403), which “would have resulted in a collectible judgment in [the plaintiffs’] favor . . . .”[1] (SAC ¶¶ 23-24, 26-29, 35, 185-186.) However, the documents of which the court has taken judicial notice establish that Plaintiff was not a named plaintiff in the Third Amended Complaint, such that Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of care in connection with the filing of that pleading.

The court acknowledges that Plaintiff has alleged facts establishing that there existed an attorney-client relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants. (SAC ¶¶ 1 [“Defendants were retained to represent plaintiff in Case# 19STCV02403], 17 [Plaintiff signed an attorney-client fee agreement with Defendants for representation in Case No. 19STCV02403], 183.) The court further acknowledges that the “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil,” filed on August 24, 2023 in the underlying case, states that defendant Patricia Rodriguez was relieved as counsel of record for Gunilla Gupta, Jose Pena, and Plaintiff. (RJN Ex. E, Order Granting Mot. to be Relieved, MC-053, ¶ 1.) The court therefore finds that Plaintiff has alleged, and the court records of which the court has taken judicial notice establish, that there existed an attorney-client relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants in the underlying case. However, the Third Amended Complaint filed in the underlying case, of which the court has also taken judicial notice, shows that Plaintiff was not a named plaintiff in that pleading.[2] (RJN Ex. B, Third Amended Complaint in Case No. 19STCV02403, p. 2:1-3 [naming as plaintiffs Gunilla Gupta and Jose Pena].)

Thus, although the court finds that the face of the Second Amended Complaint and judicially noticed documents establish the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants, the scope of that attorney-client relationship is unclear. The Third Amended Complaint in the underlying case shows that Plaintiff was not a plaintiff named in that pleading, such that Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that there existed a duty of care owed by Defendants to Plaintiff, a non-party to the Third Amended Complaint, to allege a cause of action for fraud in the Third Amended Complaint. (Streit v. Covington & Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 444 [“‘One of the requisite elements of a legal malpractice claim is the existence of an attorney-client relationship or other basis for a duty of care owed by the attorney’”].)

The court grants Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the second cause of action for breach of contract because (1) this cause of action is based on the alleged incompetence of Defendants in failing to assert a cause of action for fraud and therefore sounds in legal malpractice (SAC ¶¶ 191-192), and (2) it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for the same reasons set forth in connection with the court’s ruling on the first cause of action for legal malpractice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (b)(1)(B)(ii); Akhlaghpour, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at pp. 254-255 [elements of cause of action for legal malpractice]; Streit, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 444.)

The court denies Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty because it states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since (1) it is based, in part, on conduct other than Defendants’ allegedly negligent acts in failing to allege a cause of action for fraud in the Third Amended Complaint; (2) Plaintiff has alleged, for the reasons set forth above, that an attorney-client relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendants; and (3) Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by, inter alia, “unreasonably and excessively billing” Plaintiff for the incompetent legal services performed by Defendants in the underlying case (SAC ¶ 197).[3] (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (b)(1)(B)(ii); O’Neal v. Stanislaus County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1184, 1215 [elements of cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty]; Bird, Marella, Boxer & Wolpert v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 419, 430-431 [the fiduciary duty owed to a client by an attorney “requires fee agreements and billings [to] ‘be fair, reasonable and fully explained to the client’” and requires attorneys “to charge only fair, reasonable and conscionable fees”].)

The burden is on the plaintiff “to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient.”¿ (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.)¿ To satisfy that burden, a plaintiff “must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.”¿ (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) In his opposition, Plaintiff appears to take the position that he was added as a co-plaintiff to the Third Amended Complaint filed in the underlying case. (Opp., p. 3:12-17.) Thus, Plaintiff may be able to amend his pleading to render it sufficient by pleading facts establishing that (1) he was also a plaintiff on the Third Amended Complaint, or (2) Defendants owed him a duty to competently perform services in connection with the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to another legal theory. The court therefore grants Plaintiff leave to amend the first and second causes of action.

The court grants defendants Rodriguez Law Group, Inc., and Patricia Rodriguez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff Raj C. Gupta’s first and second causes of action.

The court denies defendants Rodriguez Law Group, Inc., and Patricia Rodriguez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff Raj C. Gupta’s third cause of action.

The court grants plaintiff Raj C. Gupta 20 days leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that cures the defects in the first and second causes of action set forth in this ruling.

The court orders defendants Rodriguez Law Group, Inc., and Patricia Rodriguez to give notice of this ruling.

[1] The court notes that Plaintiff has also alleged that Defendants failed to “tie-in [Daren] Rediger and Olive St with Julio Garcia as business partners working together” in the underlying case (SAC ¶¶ 42-43). However, the first cause of action for legal malpractice appears to be based only on Defendants’ alleged failure to allege a fraud cause of action. (SAC ¶¶ 185-186.)

[2] Plaintiff also was not named as a plaintiff in the original Complaint in the underlying action. (RJN Ex. A, Complaint in Case No. 19STCV02403, p. 2:1-3 [naming as plaintiff Gunilla Gupta].)

[3] As set forth above, Plaintiff does not appear to have alleged the existence of a duty owed by Defendants to Plaintiff in connection with pleading causes of action in the Third Amended Complaint, to which he was not a party. However, the court documents of which the court has taken judicial notice confirm that Defendants represented Plaintiff, in some capacity, in the underlying case, such that Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants excessively and unreasonably billed Plaintiff for their “incompetent legal services” may extend to work performed on behalf of Plaintiff in some other capacity (e.g., if Defendants represented Plaintiff in his capacity as a cross-defendant in the underlying case). (RJN Ex. E, Order Granting Mot. to be Relieved, MC-053, ¶ 1.)

raj c. gupta ; Plaintiff, vs. rodriguez law group, inc. , et al.; Defendants.	Case No.:	23STCV22065

	Hearing Date:	July 19, 2024

	Time:	10:00 a.m.

	[tentative] Order RE: defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings