Gonzales v. Lind CA2/1

Filed 12/24/20 Gonzales v. Lind CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THOMAS GONZALES, B304090

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19LBCV00501) v.

KIMBERLY OLSON LIND,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark C. Kim. Affirmed. Baker, Keener & Nahra, Phillip A. Baker for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Drew F. Teti, Drew F. Teti for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________________________

In this case, an attorney represented her client from 2012 to 2018. In 2018, the parties entered into a retention contract that contained a clause by which the parties agreed to seek arbitration of “any dispute” that “arises” regarding “any claim” for negligence or malpractice. In 2019, the client sued the attorney for negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and financial elder abuse. The trial court denied the attorney’s motion to compel arbitration on the ground that the arbitration agreement was ambiguous as to whether it applied to disputes arising from pre-agreement events. We agree. Although the words “any” and “arises” are facially unambiguous, in context here, the client had no reason to believe the retention contract applied to transactions from years past. Accordingly, we affirm. BACKGROUND In 2012, Thomas Gonzales retained attorneys Kimberly Lind and Duane Westrup to represent him in an employment related lawsuit. The parties entered into a 2012 written attorney retention agreement and a later oral retention agreement, neither of which contained an arbitration clause. Gonzales lost his lawsuit at trial but prevailed in part on appeal. In 2018, on the eve of retrial by new counsel (with Lind participating), Lind (but not Westrup) required that Gonzales enter into another attorney retention agreement. It provided, in pertinent part, the following: