Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Geoffrey E. Woo-Ming v. Jill Gordon

May 25, 2012

GEOFFREY E. WOO-MING, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT,
v.
JILL GORDON, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT.



(Super. Ct. No. 34200900054660CUBTGDS)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.

Woo-Ming v. Gordon CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Plaintiff Geoffrey E. Woo-Ming appeals from two trial court orders in his action against defendant Jill Gordon. As we explain, he has forfeited his appellate claims due to deficiencies in his briefing. Further, his claims lack merit. Accordingly, we shall affirm.

BACKGROUND

Woo-Ming sued Gordon and others (not party to this appeal) on August 3, 2009. The complaint is nearly incomprehensible. While difficult to decipher, the complaint appears to allege that Woo-Ming bought a medical corporation and was doing business as "Sacramento Male Performance Clinic," but Gordon and others deprived Woo-Ming of the benefits of the sale. The only mention of Gordon was that she incorporated the company. A copy of the articles of incorporation is attached to the complaint, and it identifies Gordon as an attorney.

Gordon demurred, in part alleging Woo-Ming failed to obtain leave to sue her and the complaint against her was based on her actions taken in her capacity as an attorney. The demurrer was dropped, because Woo-Ming filed an amended complaint in response to a co-defendant's demurrer.

On December 11, 2009, Woo-Ming filed his amended complaint, in part alleging Gordon had drafted a management services agreement in connection with the sale of the business, and her actions amounted to intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The amended complaint further alleged that Gordon "was also guilty of oppression when Woo-Ming signed a settlement agreement under duress[,]" which Woo-Ming characterized as fraudulent conduct done in concert with co-defendants. A letter attached to the amended complaint shows Gordon was acting as opposing counsel when she tendered a settlement agreement to Woo-Ming, which he signed.

Gordon again demurred, and the demurrer tentatively was sustained with leave to amend.

On April 5, 2010, before the ruling on the demurrer to the first amended complaint, Woo-Ming filed a second amended complaint. In addition to confusing allegations and voluminous exhibits, Woo-Ming attached a declaration purporting to explain his theory of liability.*fn1 The attachments include a copy of a full release Woo-Ming signed pursuant to the settlement agreement, which was effective as to the attorneys and agents of named defendants.

On April 14, 2010, the trial court generally affirmed the tentative ruling on the demurrer to the first amended complaint, adding: "Given that plaintiff has already filed a second amended complaint, defendant may file and serve a response to that pleading no later than April 30, 2010."

Gordon promptly demurred. On August 20, 2010, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, "for the reasons stated in the moving papers, including but not limited to Civil Code section 1714.10, the 'agent's immunity rule,' plaintiff's lack of standing to assert the claims against defendant Gordon, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.