Appellant attorney filed an action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) against appellees

 

Appellant attorney filed an action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) against appellees, newspaper and law firm, alleging malicious prosecution. The trial court granted the newspaper and the law firm a demurrer to the complaint. The attorney appealed according to the model civil jury instructions.

 

 

The attorney had filed a civil action against the newspaper alleging trespass and invasion of privacy. Likewise, his wife filed a similar claim against the newspaper. The attorney testified as a witness. The actions ended in mistrial. The attorney alleged that the newspaper and its law firm then conspired to instigate disbarment proceedings against him by submitting to the state bar a letter claiming that the testimony was perjury. The proceedings were brought by the state bar after the bar issued the attorney a notice to show cause and conducted a preliminary investigation. The bar proceeding was dismissed. The court found that the notice to show cause could not have issued unless the state bar first conducted its own preliminary investigation and determined that formal proceedings were necessary, Rules 10, 11 of the State Bar of California. Those proceedings had not been instituted by the letter. The complaint alleged that the letter in part caused the disbarment proceeding. But the fact that the committee conducted its own investigation upon which it in part relied on showed that the letter was not the cause of the investigation.

 

 

 

The court affirmed the ruling of the trial court to grant the newspaper's and the law firm's demurrer to the attorney's complaint alleging malicious prosecution.

 

Defendant city appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) in favor of plaintiff bus company in an action for breach of contract. Defendant claimed that plaintiff's action was barred by its failure to comply with the claims presentation requirements of the government claims statutes, Cal. Gov't. Code § 900 et seq., prior to filing suit to collect unpaid invoices.

 

 

 

A judgment in favor of plaintiff bus company in a breach of contract action against defendant city seeking to collect unpaid invoices was reversed and the case was remanded. Defendant claimed that plaintiff's action was barred by its failure to comply with the claims presentation requirements of the Tort Claims Act (Act), Cal. Gov't. Code, § 900 et seq., prior to filing suit. The appellate court held that the claims presentation requirements of the Act applied to contract claims, such as plaintiff's, as well as tort claims. Before plaintiff could sue defendant for failure to pay for services rendered, plaintiff had to comply with the claims presentation requirements. According to the appellate court, there was a great deal of confusion regarding the applicability of the claims statutes to contract claims, with much of the confusion stemming from the statutes' popular name. The statutory scheme, however, made it clear that contract claims were included. On remand the trial court was directed to consider issues it had not previously reached, including whether plaintiff in fact complied with the claims requirements and whether estoppel or equitable tolling were applicable.

 

 

 

Judgment for plaintiff bus company in a breach of contract action seeking to collect unpaid invoices was reversed and the case was remanded where the claims presentation requirements of the Tort Claims Act applied to contract claims against public entities as well as tort claims. On remand the trial court was directed to consider whether plaintiff complied with the claims requirements and whether estoppel or equitable tolling were applicable.