Holland v. Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Apr 23, 2014 No. B246500MUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend because the plaintiff failed to establish that his dependency counsel owed him a duty to obtain a dismissal with prejudice or to represent him regarding his CACI listing or family law custody matters.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend to a complaint alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.
Whether the plaintiff's dependency counsel had a duty to obtain a dismissal with prejudice or represent the plaintiff in matters outside the dependency proceeding.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As LADL fulfilled its legal duties to Holland, he could not state facts sufficient for a cause of action for professional negligence or a violation of fiduciary duty.”

“Holland admits that LADL did not have a duty (and he had no standing) to obtain a dismissal with prejudice in the dependency court, and he also admits that LADL cannot do anything about his CACI listing, now that the case has been dismissed.”

Filed 4/23/14 Holland v. Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION LOS ANGELES DEPENDENCY LAWYERS, INC., et al., [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 26, 2014 be modified as follows: 1. On page 1, in the counsel listing for Defendants and Respondents, “Shaeffer” is changed to “Schaeffer.” There is no change in the judgment. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

JOHNSON, J. CHANEY, Acting P. J. MILLER, J. *

*Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Filed 3/26/14 (unmodified version) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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.

Holland v. Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

MICHAEL J. HOLLAND, B246500

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

JOHNSON, J.

AI Brief