Holland v. LA Dependency Lawyers, Inc. CA2/1

Filed 3/26/14 Holland v. LA Dependency Lawyers, Inc. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

MICHAEL J. HOLLAND, B246500

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MC023477) v.

LOS ANGELES DEPENDENCY LAWYERS, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Randolph Rogers, Judge. Affirmed. Michael J. Holland, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Nemecek & Cole, Jonathan B. Cole, Mark Shaeffer and David B. Owen for Defendants and Respondents. _____________________

Michael J. Holland appeals from a judgment dismissing his first amended complaint, following the trial court’s sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. The first amended complaint (FAC), filed by Holland in propria persona on August 27, 2012, alleged that Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc. (LADL), which represents parents of children in dependency proceedings, and several individuals, committed legal malpractice and breached their fiduciary duty during their representation of Holland after he (along with his ex-wife, Kelly Jones) was included in allegations of child abuse of their two young male children. Two callers to a Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) hotline in 2010 stated that Jones was physically abusing the children, and when interviewed, the children confirmed the reports. Both Holland and Jones subsequently were named in a petition alleging that both parents violated Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j). Holland was assigned two LADL attorneys, Rebecca Harkness and Rikka Fountain. Fountain failed to seek an immediate dismissal with prejudice of the claims, and obtained a transfer of Holland’s case to avoid the hard work involved in representing him. Harkness took the case over, and failed in numerous ways to represent Holland adequately, culminating in failing to object to a DCFS motion for dismissal without prejudice, granted on May 23, 2011. A dismissal with prejudice would have been an adjudication on the merits, which would have resulted in Holland’s removal from the Child Abuse Central Index list (CACI), an index of all abuse reports maintained by the Department of Justice (DOJ). (See In re C.F. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 454, 463.) Harkness’s acceptance of the motion to dismiss without prejudice deprived Holland of a dismissal with prejudice, and kept him on the CACI list as a substantiated child abuser. This damaged his employment prospects (preventing him from continuing to work in security management), and also resulted in the family court’s viewing Holland and Jones as “co-abusers” and switching primary custody of the children to Jones. The FAC also alleged that LADL was inadequately staffed and provided incompetent assistance. Holland asked for compensatory and punitive damages.