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.

Bergeron v. Boyd

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division

March 4, 2014

LARISA BERGERON, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
ROBERT BOYD, Defendant and Respondent.

Filed Ordered Date 2/6/14

Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG12615764 Hon. Dennis Hayashi

Counsel for Appellant: Law Office of Paul Kleven, Paul Kleven

Counsel for Respondent: Supple & Canvel, Rick Canvel, Robert D. Sanford

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 4, 2014, be modified as follows:

On page 3, line 5 of footnote 2, the words “legally cognizable” are to be inserted between the words “No” and “request” so that the sentence reads:

No legally cognizable request has been made in this court to take judicial notice of all “pleadings and papers” comprising the trial court file in the underlying family law action, and no copies of those documents, except as noted above, have been submitted by the parties.

On page 3, line 9 of footnote 2, after the sentence ending “have been submitted by the parties, ” add the following sentence:

(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.128 [use of superior court file in lieu of clerk’s transcript].)

There is no change in the judgment. Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

RUVOLO, P. J.

I.

Introduction

Embroiled in protracted, acrimonious child custody proceedings with her former spouse, Larisa Bergeron (appellant) sued psychologist and family court child custody evaluator Robert Boyd, Ph.D. (respondent) for breach of contract, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The acts complained of included the issuance of an interim custody order that restricted appellant’s access to her children.

Respondent demurred to the complaint, asserting that the conduct complained of was protected by the common law privilege for quasi-judicial acts and by the litigation privilege. (Civ. Code, § 47.) Both in the trial court and on appeal, appellant contends respondent was without jurisdiction to issue such an order, and thus, the act of doing so was not privileged.[1] The trial court agreed that the quasi-judicial privilege applied, and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on that basis. We affirm.

II.

standard of review


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.