O'Hill Capital v. Phillips CA4/3

Filed 11/10/25 O’Hill Capital v. Phillips 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

O’HILL CAPITAL,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G063268, G064007

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2023-01314224)

JOHN BENEDICT PHILLIPS et al., OPINION

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David A. Hoffer, Judge. Affirmed. Clinton Bailey and Mark C. Clinton; Law Office of Kathryn M. Davis and Kathryn M. Davis; Morris & Stone and Aaron P. Morris for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kaufman Dolowich and Jeremiah Harvey for Defendants and Respondents. No appearance for Respondent Andrea Rea O’Hill. * * *

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This is an appeal from an order granting an anti-SLAPP motion. This case is an offshoot of the long-running divorce proceeding between Robert O’Hill (Robert) and Andrea O’Hill (Andi). As we discuss in detail in a concurrently filed opinion in O’Hill v. O’Hill, Nov. 10, 2025,G063223) [nonpub. opn.], the family law court has issued orders requiring Robert to pay Andi’s attorney fees, which Robert has largely failed to comply with.1 The record in that appeal reveals that he is over $1 million in arrears on payments in fees and costs. In an effort to enforce its orders, the family law court issued a charging order against Robert’s interest in appellant O’Hill Capital and joined O’Hill Capital in the family law proceeding. After O’Hill Capital was joined in the family law proceeding, Andi filed what amounted to a civil complaint directly against O’Hill Capital, asserting ten causes of action. She included claims for declaratory relief, tortious interference with contract/economic advantage, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. This complaint was filed in the family law proceeding. O’Hill Capital demurred, asserting various grounds, including that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, and that the complaint exceeded the jurisdiction of the family law court. The family law court sustained the demurrer “with prejudice” but “with the following reservations: a. Andi is not precluded from per[su]ing [sic] tort and contractual claims against [O’Hill Capital] in any civil proceeding,” and O’Hill Capital remained joined to the family law proceeding for purposes of enforcing the attorney fee orders.