Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald v. Becerra CA2/8

Filed 5/8/15 Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald v. Becerra CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

JONES, BELL, ABBOTT, FLEMING & B255418 FITZGERALD LLP, (Los Angeles County Cross-Complainant and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BC510333)

v.

JOSEPH BECERRA,

Cross-Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Debre K. Weintraub, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.

Lancaster & Anastasia, William H. Lancaster and Damon C. Anastasia for Cross- Defendant and Appellant.

Gaglione, Dolan & Kaplan, Robert T. Dolan and Martina A. Silas for Cross- Complainant and Respondent.

__________________________________

We affirm an order denying an anti-SLAPP motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)1 We reverse an order and remand on the finding that the motion was frivolous. FACTS Cross-defendant and appellant Joseph Becerra, a lawyer, left a partnership at a law firm, cross-complainant respondent Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald LLP (hereafter Jones or the Jones firm). Becerra subsequently filed a complaint for damages and an accounting against his former firm and its individual partners. Becerra’s main claim is that the Jones firm owes him attorney’s fees that it has received as a result of client development and legal work he did while affiliated with the firm. In a recent opinion, we addressed rulings on an anti-SLAPP motion by the Jones firm challenging two of Becerra’s nine causes of action. (Becerra v. Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald LLP (Feb. 27, 2015, B251189 [nonpub. opn.].) Jones filed a first amended cross-complaint (FACC) against Becerra in the action noted above. The FACC alleged eight causes of action against its former partner, listed respectively: breach of fiduciary duty; constructive trust over money received – unjust enrichment; conversion; money had and received; intentional interference with contractual relationship; violation of the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200); breach of contract; and quantum meruit. The main claim alleged in Jones’s FACC is that Becerra owes his former firm attorney’s fees that he received on cases sourced out of the firm. Jones alleges that when Becerra left the firm, he took several clients and their cases with him, and that he has now settled the cases and collected attorney’s fees. Jones alleges it is owed attorney’s fees collected and now held by Becerra reflective of legal work done by Jones on the cases before the clients left the firm.2