Gerry v. Murphy CA2/2

Filed 2/3/15 Gerry v. Murphy CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

KEVIN GERRY, B253747

Cross-complainant and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC458419) v.

GLENN A. MURPHY et al.,

Cross-defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael L. Stern, Judge. Affirmed.

Kevin Gerry, in pro. per., for Cross-complainant and Appellant.

Glenn A. Murphy, in pro. per., and for Cross-defendant and Respondent Charles Williams.

Seyfarth Shaw, Eric R. McDonough; and Daniel R. Sable, for Cross-defendants and Respondents HEI Long Beach, LLC, Seyfarth Shaw LLC and Todd C. Hunt.

_________________________

This appeal is from a judgment following the trial court’s granting of motions for directed verdicts. Appellant has failed to show error by the trial court. We therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Underlying Case and Interpleader Action Appellant Kevin Gerry (appellant) is an attorney who represented respondent Charles Williams (Williams) in a disability discrimination case against Hilton Hotels and others (the underlying case). After approximately 18 months, respondent Glenn A. Murphy (Murphy) substituted as counsel in place of appellant. In the underlying case, Williams named as defendants HEI Long Beach, LLC (HEI) and Ocean Park Hotels, Inc. (OPH). Respondents Todd C. Hunt and his law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP represented HEI (collectively the HEI parties). OPH was represented by separate attorneys who are not parties to this appeal. Murphy was successful in obtaining judgments against OPH and HEI in favor of Williams. Because there was a dispute as to whether appellant was entitled to attorney fees, OPH filed an interpleader action in Santa Barbara County (the OPH interpleader action). Following a bench trial, the trial court found that appellant was entitled to the full amount of interpleaded funds of approximately $27,000, based on his fee agreement with Williams and his attorney fees lien. HEI, on the other hand, sent a check of approximately $12,000 to Murphy on behalf of Williams. No payment of attorney fees was made to appellant, who claims that he is owed such fees. The Instant Case Williams filed the instant case against appellant for malpractice and fraud. Appellant filed a cross-complaint against respondents Williams, Murphy and the HEI parties, seeking his attorney fees with respect to the judgment against HEI. The cross- complaint alleges causes of action for (1) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (2) breach of contract, (3) conversion, and (4) a common count for money had and received.