Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV32406, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32406    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On October 4, 2022, Plaintiff Timothy H Dupler (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ron Reitshtein and Youngman Reitshtein, PLC (jointly, “Defendants”)

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC alleges causes of action for (1) professional negligence, (2) breach of fiduciary duty,

(3) intentional misrepresentation, and (4) negligent misrepresentation.

            In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that “Plaintiff was the Petitioner in a divorce action occurring in Torrance Superior Court Family Law section under Case number: YD068909. Respondent in the case filed a Civil Suit in response to the divorce filing in Torrance Superior Court YC7072678 and received a default judgement as Plaintiff was unaware of the dual filings. As a result of the nature of the proceedings, Plaintiff (Petitioner in the original case) contracted the services of Family Law attorney, Ron Reitshtein…” (FAC, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff alleges that “Mr Reitshtein properly filed a Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgement and Join an improperly filed Civil Case: YC072678 case to the YD068909 Family Law Case. However; according to the Court and the records are undisputed, Mr Reitshtein failed to take the next step of filing the Motion to Set Aside/Joinder Motion in the Family Law Court. This, according to the Court, caused the Set Aside to lapse and the Default on the Civil case to take effect meaning all damages claimed in the Civil case were from that point forward, legally liable and collectible damages against Petitioner/Plaintiff…” (FAC, ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff now moves “to [j]oin Barbara J Youngman as a necessary party to this case as a Partner/Shareholder to Youngman Reitshtein, PLC and Ron Reitshtein.” Defendants oppose.

Discussion

Plaintiff cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 379 in support of the motion, which provides as follows:

“(a) All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them:

(1) Any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action; or

(2) A claim, right, or interest adverse to them in the property or controversy which is the subject of the action.

(b) It is not necessary that each defendant be interested as to every cause of action or as to all relief prayed for. Judgment may be given against one or more defendants according to their respective liabilities.

(c) Where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the person from whom he or she is entitled to redress, he or she may join two or more defendants, with the intent that the question as to which, if any, of the defendants is liable, and to what extent, may be determined between the parties.”

As discussed, Plaintiff seeks to “[j]oin Barbara J Youngman as a necessary party to this case…” (Mot. at p. 1:17-18.) Plaintiff argues that “Ms. Youngman is a Senior Partner of Yougman [sic] Reitshteain [sic], PLC,” and that “as founder and Senior Attorney for the firm, Ms. Youngman would have at least 50% authority to determine the insurance limits to cover both the firm and Attorney Ron Reitshtein…” (Mot. at p. 2:19; 2:23-26.) The Court notes that Plaintiff does not provide any evidence to support such assertions. In addition, Plaintiff does not appear to provide any argument as to why Code of Civil Procedure section 379 purportedly authorizes the Court to join Barbara J Youngman as a party to this case.

Further, as noted by Defendants, Plaintiff does not provide “any argument or evidence that Ms. Youngman was personally involved in the handling of the underlying Civil or Family Law Actions or that Ms. Youngman’s own acts or omissions caused Plaintiff any damages.” (Opp’n at p. 3:8-10, emphasis omitted.) In her declaration in support of the opposition, Barbara Youngman states that “I have not had any personal involvement with the Plaintiff and was not involved in any way in the defense of either the underlying civil action entitled Lisa McCullough v. Timothy Haskell Dupler, with Torrance Superior Court Case No. YC072678 or family law action entitled Timothy Haskell Dupler v. Lisa Louise McCullough-Dupler with Torrance Superior Court Case No. YD068909, that are the subject of this case. I only learned of the case after the fact when Plaintiff sued my colleague Ron Reitshtein and our law firm.” (Youngman Decl., ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff also cites to “California State Bar Rule 3.158.” (Mot. at p. 3:7.) Rule 3.158(A)(1) of the Rules of the State Bar provide that “[e]ach law corporation must provide the State Bar with proof of security for claims for errors and omissions of the corporation or any person who practices law on behalf of the corporation, on its behalf as an employee or otherwise. The law corporation must provide proof of security with its Application to Register as a Law Corporation and provide new proof of security when that last provided is no longer current. Proof of security must be provided as indicated below. (1) All law corporations, except as otherwise provided in this rule, must provide a Law Corporation Guarantee providing that the shareholders jointly and severally agree to pay all claims established against the law corporation for errors and omissions arising out of the rendering of professional services. The guarantee must name each shareholder and be executed by each.”

Plaintiff contends that “[a]s such, Ms. Youngman and any other shareholders of the PLC by law, have agreed to joint and severable liability for Ron Reitshtein’s acts and omissions in Family law case YD068909 and the related Civil Case YC072678 as all work was done at Youngman Reitshtein, PLC law offices utilizing the joined staff…” (Mot. at p. 4:1-5.) The Court notes that Plaintiff does not provide evidence in support of this assertion. As noted by Defendants, “Plaintiff has not provided any facts what would support Ms. Youngman being added to this case.” (Opp’n at p. 8:6.) In addition, it is unclear how Rule 3.158(A)(1) of the Rules of the State Bar authorizes the Court to join Ms. Youngman to the instant action.

Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated grounds to “[j]oin Barbara J Youngman as a necessary party to this case.” (Mot. at p. 1:17-18.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this Order. 

DATED:  April 23, 2024                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court