Calhoon v. McKeon CA4/3

Filed 7/31/25 Calhoon v. McKeon CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ERNEST CALHOON,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G062408

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2020- 01166729) MERRITT MCKEON et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, James L. Crandall, Judge and Geoffrey T. Glass, Judge (Retired Judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.). Affirmed. Ernest Calhoon for Plaintiff and Appellant. Merritt McKeon for Defendants and Respondents.

In June 2017, Ernest Calhoon sued defendants Merritt McKeon and Eric John Turkel (collectively, defendants) for legal malpractice and related claims. In September 2022, the trial court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion. Calhoon appeals the ruling and resulting judgment on several grounds. We find no merit in any of Calhoon’s arguments and affirm. FACTS In June 2017, Calhoon filed a complaint against defendants in the Superior Court of Los Angeles alleging negligence and professional malpractice.1 Subsequently, on a motion filed by defendants, the matter was transferred to the Superior Court of Orange County. In May 2022, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was set for hearing on August 25, 2022. On August 17, 2022—eight days before the summary judgment motion was set to be heard and six days after the opposition to the motion

1 The malpractice was alleged to have occurred in connection with defendants’ representation of Denise Thomas and her minor child, LGT, in a family law matter. Calhoon, who previously had represented Thomas and the child in the family law matter, allegedly filed this appeal on his own behalf as well as on behalf of Thomas and the minor child. Thomas later informed this court she was unaware an appeal had been filed on her behalf, and pursuant to her stipulation, she was dismissed from the appeal. The minor child also was dismissed, as the appeal was brought in her own name and a minor cannot appeal in his or her own name. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 372, subd. (a)(1).) Calhoon, who alleges he had standing to sue defendants in connection with their representation of Thomas and the minor child because he paid for the representation, remains the only appellant.