2017-00210043-CU-FR

Peccia vs. Wagner Kirkman Blaine Klomparens & Youmans LLP

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Demurrer

Filed By: Kachmar, James

Defendants Edward J. Corey, Jr.’s and Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation’s demurrer to self-represented Plaintiff Michelle Isabella Peccia’s complaint is sustained with leave to amend.

In this action Plaintiff alleges causes of action against Defendants and numerous other law firms and lawyers and judges for extrinsic fraud, racketeering, corruption, conversion, obstruction of justice and elder abuse in connection with a Sacramento County Superior Court probate case. Defendant Edward Corey, Jr. was a mediator in the action and the mediation took place at Defendant Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation’s law office. Plaintiff alleges that she was subject to Mr. Corey denied her request for a stenographer and videographer at the mediation, that her former attorney Dan Wilcoxen was mad at Plaintiff because she refused to mediate with Mr. Corey and that Mr. Corey and what appears to be every other attorney and judicial officer involved in the probate action at any time “conducted Law as if they were the JUDGE and JURY.” She alleges that she provided a forensic accounting to Mr. Corey. There are no other allegations specific to Defendants.

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state a cause of action. To that end, even if Plaintiff’s allegations could somehow be construed to actually state some cause of action, they are barred by judicial immunity. The concept of judicial immunity “bars civil actions against judges for acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions and it applies to all judicial determinations, including those rendered in excess of the judge’s jurisdiction, no matter how erroneous or even malicious or corrupt they may be.” (Howard v. Drabkin (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 843, 851.) Courts have extended the concept with the recognition of “quasi-judicial immunity” which has “extended absolute judicial immunity to persons other than judges if those persons act in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity.” (Id. at 852-853.) This those involved in neutral dispute resolution. (Id. at 853.) “We therefore hold that absolute quasi-judicial immunity is properly extended to these neutral third parties for their conduct in performing dispute resolution services which are connected to judicial process and involve either (1) the making of binding decisions, (2) the making of findings or recommendations to the court or (3) the arbitration, mediation, conciliation, evaluation or other similar resolution of pending disputes.” (Id. at 860.) Here Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Corey was appointed to serve as a mediator, denied requests Plaintiff made at the mediation and that he “conducted law as if [he] were the JUDGE and JURY.” The only allegations against Defendant Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation’s law office are that the mediation took place at its office. The complaint as currently pled against Defendants is barred by the concept of quasi-judicial immunity.

The demurrer is sustained for the reasons stated in Defendants’ memorandum of points and authorities. The Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the demurrer as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].) While the Court is unclear how Plaintiff can avoid the defect, as this is the first challenge to the pleading, leave to amend is granted.

Plaintiff may file and serve an amended complaint no later than June 7, 2018. Defendants shall file and serve their response within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the

amended complaint is served by mail as modified by the CCP § 430.41 extension as necessary.