Martinez v. John A. Barker & Assocs.
Appellant sued the court appointed attorneys who represented him in a misdemeanor case. He alleged that their mishandling of the case resulted in his wrongful conviction as well as his incarceration for 57 days in connection with competency proceedings under Penal Code section 1368. As an alternate, narrower theory of wrong and injury, appellants allegations indicate that respondents unjustified failure to attend doctors interviews caused the time he spent in jail in connection with the competency proceeding to be unnecessarily prolonged.
Appellant contends the superior court committed reversible error by treating his pleadings as only involving a claim for legal malpractice and by failing to overrule the demurrer as to cognizable theories of recovery for, among other things, (1) strict liability, (2) abuse of process, (3) false imprisonment, (4) defamation, (5) public nuisance, (6) intentional battery through the use of an abnormally dangerous activity, (7) trespass to chattel, and (8) invasion of privacy. Appellant also contends respondents conceded that his complaint should be presented to a jury because they stipulated to a trial date at a case management conference.
On appeal, respondents ignore the above enumerated legal theories and treat appellants pleadings as attempting to allege only a claim for wrongful conviction based on legal malpractice. This inappropriately narrow view of the pleadings apparently occurred in the superior court as well. The record on appeal does not show that those legal theories were addressed by respondents or considered by the superior court before the order dismissing the complaint was entered.
Accordingly, Court (1) affirm the order sustaining the general demurrer only as it relates to appellants claim that legal malpractice caused his wrongful conviction, (2) reverse the order as to other claims asserted, and (3) remand for further proceedings on the other claims. Appellants argument that the further proceedings require a trial to be held is rejected based on our conclusion that the parties agreement to set a trial date is not the legal equivalent of agreeing that the matter would be tried.
Comments on Martinez v. John A. Barker & Assocs.