Riverside Superior Judge Kira Klatchko was correct in dismissing a case against the State Bar of California, the Court of Appeal ruled April 13.
The case argued that Cathedral City’s contract with Data Ticket, a company that processes citations, violates state law by allowing an unlawful lawyer referral service.
The agreement between Cathedral City and Data Ticket allows for Data Ticket to engage subcontractors, including lawyers, for adjudication services.
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.
Plaintiff David 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.
Koslow’s only relief under the law, injunctive relief, is not dependent on the State Bar, the Court of Appeal ruled. Therefore, he cannot force the State Bar to prosecute Data Ticket.
“The (complaint) does not allege that the State Bar violated any laws or committed any other wrong. The (complaint) instead seeks an order compelling the State Bar to prosecute this action against Data Ticket and Napolitano. But the (complaint) does not identify the legal authority for such an order. Even if we were to construe the SAC as a petition for writ of mandate compelling the State Bar to act, that petition would fail,” the Court of Appeal wrote.
The court also filed a separate opinion affirming Klatchko’s denial of a motion to disqualify counsel.
Koslow had moved to disqualify Data Ticket’s and defendant Steven Napolitano’s counsel on the ground that there was a conflict of interest between the two defendants. Klatchko denied his motion because he lacked standing to bring it, since he was never a client of the defense counsel.
The Court of Appeal agreed.
“Koslow failed to show any risk of harm to his legally cognizable interests, instead relying entirely on the claimed harm to Data Ticket and Napolitano,” the Court of Appeal wrote.
Case information
Case No. CVPS2103087
Appellate Case Nos. E078594 and E078092
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.
Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, Justice Frank Menetrez wrote each opinion, which Acting Presiding Justice Douglas Miller and Justice Carol Codrington joined.
Read the complaint here.
Read Klatchko’s rulings here.
