(a)No cause of action against an attorney for a civil conspiracy with his or her client arising from any attempt to contest or compromise a claim or dispute, and which is based upon the attorney’s representation of the client, shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing the pleading that includes the claim for civil conspiracy to be filed after the court determines that the party seeking to file the pleading has established that there is a reasonable probability that the party will prevail
in the action. The court may allow the filing of a pleading claiming liability based upon such a civil conspiracy following the filing of a verified petition therefor accompanied by the proposed pleading and supporting affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability is based. The court shall order service of the petition upon the party against whom the action is proposed to be filed and permit that party to submit opposing affidavits prior to making its determination. The filing of the petition, proposed pleading, and accompanying affidavits shall toll the running of any applicable statute of limitations until the final determination of the matter, which ruling, if favorable to the petitioning party, shall permit the proposed pleading to be filed.
(b)Failure to obtain a court order where required by subdivision (a) shall be a defense to any action for civil conspiracy filed in violation thereof. The defense shall be raised by the
attorney charged with civil conspiracy upon that attorney’s first appearance by demurrer, motion to strike, or such other motion or application as may be appropriate. Failure to timely raise the defense shall constitute a waiver thereof.
(c)This section shall not apply to a cause of action against an attorney for a civil conspiracy with his or her client, where (1) the attorney has an independent legal duty to the plaintiff, or (2) the attorney’s acts go beyond the performance of a professional duty to serve the client and involve a conspiracy to violate a legal duty in furtherance of the attorney’s financial gain.
(d)This section establishes a special proceeding of a civil nature. Any order made under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) which determines the rights of a petitioner or an attorney against whom a pleading has been or is proposed to be filed, shall be appealable as a final
judgment in a civil action.
(e)Subdivision (d) does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, the existing law.
Notes of Decisions
Esg Capital Partners v. Venable LLP, 828 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10 . The Rule does not shield an attorney who had an independent legal duty to the plaintiff, or an attorney who went beyond a professional duty as part of a conspiracy for the attorney’s financial gain.”
Lauter v. Anoufrieva, 642 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
· cites it 6× “ms seven through nine and eleven, fail to state claims and/or are improper and should be dismissed; 18 (ii) claim eleven — the prima facie tort claim — is not cognizable and should be dismissed; (iii) claim fourteen— the civil conspiracy claim — and all portions of plaintiffs…”
Farmers & Merchants Trust Co. v. Vanetik, 245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 608 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019).
· cites it 4× “THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY GRANTED THE WEED DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JNOV BASED ON THE LACK OF EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE WEED DEFENDANTS AND THE VANETIKS .”
Steel v. City of San Diego, 726 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (S.D. Cal. 2010).
· cites it 5× “First, they contend that Plaintiffs claims should be stricken because Plaintiff has failed to comply with Cal. Civil Code § 1714.10 . (Attorney Defs.”
Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Sec. Corp., 926 P.2d 1061 (Cal. 1996).
· cites it 2× “16 [“SLAPP” (strategic lawsuits against public participation) suits], Civ. Code, § 1714.10 [action for civil conspiracy against attorney for conspiring with client to contest or compromise dispute].”
Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “13), causes of action against attorneys for certain civil conspiracies with clients (Civ. Code, § 1714.10), and punitive damages claims against religious organizations (Code Civ.”
Pierce v. Lyman, 1 Cal. App. 4th 1093 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “” 11 Civil Code section 1714.10 was enacted in 1988.”
Robertson v. Rodriguez, 36 Cal. App. 4th 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “) Also, Civil Code section 1714.10 bars the assertion of a cause of action against an attorney for a civil conspiracy with a client unless the trial court determines there is a “reasonable probability” the plaintiff will prevail.”
Stueve v. Berger Kahn, 222 Cal. App. 4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “This particular appeal challenges the order granting the Civil Code section 1714.10 motion of Attorney Allen’s law firm, Berger Kahn, to strike the conspiracy allegations of the Stueves’ second amended complaint.”
Flores v. Emerich & Fike, 416 F. Supp. 2d 885 (E.D. Cal. 2006).
· cites it 2× “In California, Civil Code § 1714.10 requires a plaintiff to obtain a court order prior to filing any claim premised upon an attorney’s conspiracy with a client: No cause of action against an attorney for a civil conspiracy with his or her client arising from any attempt to…”
Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 2 P.3d 27 (Cal. 2000).
“, Civ. Code, §§ 1714.10, subd. (a) [plaintiff must show “reasonable probability” of prevailing on civil conspiracy claim against attorney], 3295, subd.”
Cal. Civil Code § 1714.10(a): 3 cases
Flores v. Emerich & Fike, 416 F. Supp. 2d 885 (E.D. Cal. 2006).
“In California, Civil Code § 1714.10 requires a plaintiff to obtain a court order prior to filing any claim premised upon an attorney’s conspiracy with a client: No cause of action against an attorney for a civil conspiracy with his or her client arising from any attempt to…”
Cal. Civil Code § 1714.10(b): 1 case
Lauter v. Anoufrieva, 642 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
“ms seven through nine and eleven, fail to state claims and/or are improper and should be dismissed; 18 (ii) claim eleven — the prima facie tort claim — is not cognizable and should be dismissed; (iii) claim fourteen— the civil conspiracy claim — and all portions of plaintiffs…”
Cal. Civil Code § 1714.10(c): 2 cases
Esg Capital Partners v. Venable LLP, 828 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2016).
“Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10 . The Rule does not shield an attorney who had an independent legal duty to the plaintiff, or an attorney who went beyond a professional duty as part of a conspiracy for the attorney’s financial gain.”
Lauter v. Anoufrieva, 642 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
“ms seven through nine and eleven, fail to state claims and/or are improper and should be dismissed; 18 (ii) claim eleven — the prima facie tort claim — is not cognizable and should be dismissed; (iii) claim fourteen— the civil conspiracy claim — and all portions of plaintiffs…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.