Kennedy v. Far East National Bank
Filed 4/14/06 Kennedy v. Far East National Bank CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| SAILOR J. KENNEDY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FAR EAST NATIONAL BANK, Defendant and Respondent. | B183062 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC276359) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Edward A. Ferns, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Federico C .Sayre, Federico C. Sayre and James F. Rumm for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Proskauer Rose, Michael A. Firestein and Robert H. Horn for Defendant and Respondent.
______________________________________________
Plaintiff Sailor Kennedy, who has been declared a vexatious litigant (PBA,LLC v. KPOD,Ltd. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 965, 974 et seq.) (plaintiff), appeals from a summary judgment granted to Far East National Bank (bank) on plaintiff's first amended complaint. The gist of the amended complaint is that the bank allegedly tortiously concealed from plaintiff that a judgment in favor of bank, and against plaintiff, in an underlying action had been satisfied long before bank filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, and this alleged concealment and failure to timely file the satisfaction of judgment caused plaintiff damages in his business dealings.
Like the trial court, we find that at the very least, this suit is precluded by the litigation privilege in Civil Code section 47, and that bank presented unrefuted evidence that it did not conceal from plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise, the status of plaintiff's outstanding debt on the judgment in that underlying action. We therefore will affirm the summary judgment.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. The First Amended Complaint
The following is a summary of the allegations in the operative complaint.
According to that pleading which is plaintiff's first amended complaint (complaint), plaintiff and bank were involved in prior litigation in which bank was represented by the other defendants named in the instant action--the law firm of Proskauer Rose and its attorneys Michael Firestein and Robert Horn (law firm or Proskauer Rose, Firestein, and Horn, and together with bank, defendants). The complaint further alleges the following.
On February 11, 1998, in this previous litigation, bank obtained a judgment against plaintiff in the sum of $5,243,835.60. Plaintiff alleges this judgment against him was satisfied on November 7, 1998, â€
