Riverside Superior Judge Kira Klatchko sustained three demurrers Feb. 9 against a case alleging Cathedral City is involved in an illegal lawyer referral service.
The case
Cathedral City has contracted with Data Ticket Inc. to process bails, fines and forfeitures since 2013, according to the second amended complaint from the self-represented artist David Koslow.
The agreement between Cathedral City and Data Ticket allows for Data Ticket to engage subcontractors, including lawyers, for adjudication services.
This is a form of legal referrals that violates state law, the complaint claims.
Businesses cannot refer clients to lawyers, and lawyers cannot accept referrals from businesses, unless the business is registered with the Bar of California and meets certain standards, under Business Code Section 6155.
Koslow also claimed that Sandra Molina, a Cathedral City code compliance officer, began requesting Data Ticket select specific lawyers, including the Manhattan Beach lawyer Steven Napolitano, to perform as hearing officers because she expected them to rule in the city’s favor.
Koslow had already reported the alleged referrals to the State Bar.
Koslow’s complaint included six causes of action: a declaratory cause declaring the contract void, an injunctive cause against Data Ticket, an injunctive cause against Napolitano, an injunctive cause against Cathedral City and its employees, an order compelling the State Bar of California to prosecute the case as the real party in interest, and a cause for public interest legal fees.
Data Ticket’s and Cathedral City’s demurrer
Klatchko sustained three demurrers against Koslow’s second amended complaint.
Data Ticket and Napolitano jointly demurred, and so did Cathedral City and its employees, both arguing the causes of action are uncertain or unsupported by sufficient facts.
The court sustained both demurrers with 20 days leave to amend.
Koslow’s first cause, seeking a declaration voiding the agreement, has no legal basis because Section 6155 allows injunctions only if violations of the section arise, not declarations.
The complaint also did not plead facts to support the theory that Data Ticket’s agreement breaches any of the code sections referenced by the complaint, the tentative ruling found.
Koslow’s second cause, seeking an injunction, fails to prove Data Ticket’s service was a referral at all, the court found. A referral is the act of directing a potential client to an attorney, and the complaint did not plead facts suggesting Data Ticket directs potential clients to an attorney, the tentative ruling said.
Koslow’s cause for an injunction against Napolitano falls for the same reason, and his last cause for public interest legal fees is merely a prayer for damages, the court found.
State Bar’s demurrer
The State Bar of California demurred against Koslow’s cause to compel them to prosecute, arguing the complaint failed to state facts to support any cause of action, that the Bar is not properly joined in the action and is not a necessary plaintiff, that the bar is not alleged to have committed any wrongful conduct, and that the action is uncertain.
The court agreed, and sustained without leave to amend.
Koslow did not cite, and the court did not find, legal authority that would empower the court to compel the State Bar to be joined against its will.
Because Section 6155 states any person can enjoin a violation of the section, the State Bar is not a necessary party.
Parties
David Koslow represents himself.
Sean Edward Morrissey of Anaheim’s The Erskine Law Group represents Data Ticket and Napolitano.
Algeria Ford of Riverside’s Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP represents Cathedral City and its employees.
James Chang of the State Bar represents the State Bar.
Case number CVPS2103087.
Read the complaint here.
Read the tentative rulings here.
