|
|
|
RODNEY RYCE VS. EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT
Summary: Attorney Jon Parsons represents the plaintiff in a wrongful terminaton lawsuit. The defendants had challenged a claim in the lawsuit and the judge agreed plaintiff could not pursue the claim. However, the judge granted Parsons leave to amend to allege facts that would permit the claim.
Instead of amending the claim at-issue, Jon Parsons filed an entirely different claim and added new defendants.
The judge ruled Parson's filing exceeded what was permitted under the court order and was unauthorized. Even if it had been authorized, the judge further stated Parsons' allegations did not properly state a claim and were properly dismissed.
From the Judge and Court File:
Jon Parsons represents the plaintiff Rodney Ryce in a wrongful termination lawsuit against the East Palo Alto Sanitary District and other defendants.
The judge said plaintiff alleged a claim challenging the validity of another employee's contract. The court ruled plaintiff lacked standing to make that claim, but the judge made a ruling allowing Parsons the opportunity to amend and allege facts establishing standing.
However, Jon Parsons, Esq., then filed a different cause of action for conspiracy against different defendants.
The judge ruled the allegations and "new cause of action exceeds the scope of the Court's [] order..."
Then the judge said "even if the Court had authorized an amendment adding new causes of action" that what attorney Jon Parsons alleged "does not properly state a conspiracy claim".
The judge said "Conspiracy is not a separate cause of action". The judge also said even if the allegations were true, they did not "constitute any actionable tort ... or even a violation of a statute, and thus cannot serve as the basis for a conspiracy claim."
The judge then dismissed the allegations.
It appears the judge said attorney Jon Parsons did 5 things wrong:
First, he alleged a claim that his client did not have standing to pursue.
Second, when given the opportunity in a court order he failed to allege facts to show his client did have standing to pursue the claim.
Third, he exceeded the scope of the court order and made unauthorized allegations in a new conspiracy claim against different defendants.
Fourth, conspiracy is not a cause of action.
Fifth, the alleged facts did not constitute a tort, or violation of statute, and could not support a conspiracy claim.
Overall, this is not the type of competent legal representation we would want. Jon Parsons repeatedly could not allege facts supporting legal claims he was filing for his client. He exceeded the scope of a court order and made unauthorized claims. And the claims he did make did not constitute a proper claim anyway.
Jon Parsons was admitted to the California Bar in 1979. Bar Number 88045.
Jon R. Parsons Law Firm
2225 East Bayshore Road Suite 210
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Law School: Santa Clara