O&C Creditors Grp., LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC, A151789

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BROWN, J.
• Citation: 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 596,42 Cal.App.5th 546
• Parties: O&C CREDITORS GROUP, LLC, et al., Cross-complainants and Appellants, v. STEPHENS & STEPHENS XII, LLC, et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants, v. O&C Creditors Group, LLC, et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents. O&C Creditors Group, LLC, et al., Cross-complainants and Appellants, v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents.
• Decision Date: 25 November 2019
• Docket Number: A152762,A151789,A152002

42 Cal.App.5th 546
255 Cal.Rptr.3d 596

O&C CREDITORS GROUP, LLC, et al., Cross-complainants and Appellants,
v.
STEPHENS & STEPHENS XII, LLC, et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents.

Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants,
v.
O&C Creditors Group, LLC, et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents.

O&C Creditors Group, LLC, et al., Cross-complainants and Appellants,
v.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents.

A151789
A152002
A152762

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.

Filed November 25, 2019
As Modified December 17, 2019

Certified for Partial Publication.^*

Danko Meredith, Michael S. Danko, Los Angeles, Claire Y. Choo ; Law Office of Gary Simms, Gary L. Simms for Cross-complainants and Appellants in No. A151789.

Lubin Olson & Niewiadomski, Jonathan E. Sommer, Kyle A. Withers, San Francisco, for Cross-defendants and Respondents Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC, et al. in No. A151789.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Robert B. Humphreys, Rex S. Heinke, Los Angeles, for Cross-defendants and Respondents Fireman’s Fund et al. in No. A151789.

Lubin Olson & Niewiadomski, Jonathan E. Sommer, Kyle A. Withers, San Francisco, for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants in No. A152002.

Danko Meredith, Michael S. Danko, Los Angeles, Claire Y. Choo ; Law Office of Gary Simms, Gary L. Simms for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents in No. A152002.

Danko Meredith, Michael S. Danko, Los Angeles, Claire Y. Choo ; Law Office of Gary Simms, Gary L. Simms for Cross-complainants and Appellants in No. A152762.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Robert B. Humphreys, Rex S. Heinke, Los Angeles, for Cross-defendants and Respondents in No. A152762.

BROWN, J.

42 Cal.App.5th 553

These consolidated appeals arise from an insurance coverage dispute that resulted in a $5.8 million settlement in favor of the insured. At the center of the dispute is the enforceability of a lien for attorney’s fees filed by the insured’s former attorney, who is now deceased. Prior to his death, the attorney for the insured became subject to an involuntary bankruptcy. The largest creditor of the bankruptcy estate, also an attorney, purchased the attorney fee claim and received all of the debtor-attorney’s client files, including the insured’s

255 Cal.Rptr.3d 603

file. After the insured sought declaratory relief, the attorney-creditor assigned his interest in the fee claim to a newly formed corporate entity, of which the attorney-creditor is the sole member.

In these consolidated appeals and cross-appeals, the parties dispute whether the trial court erred in (1) denying the insured’s motion to disqualify the attorney-creditor from representing the corporate entity, (2) granting a protective discovery order regarding the insured’s client file, and (3) granting an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike in favor of the insurer and awarding attorney fees to the insurer as the prevailing party. Finding no such errors, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Insurance Coverage Dispute

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (Fireman’s Fund) issued an insurance policy covering property damage at an industrial warehouse owned by Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC and its affiliates¹ (collectively, Stephens or the Stephens entities). ( Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1134–1135, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 ( Stephens XII ).) Three days after the policy became effective, Stephens discovered that burglars stripped the property of all electrical and conductive material. ( Ibid. ) Stephens filed a claim with Fireman’s Fund for coverage. The claim was not resolved, prompting Stephens to file an insurance coverage suit. ( Ibid. )

42 Cal.App.5th 554

B. Stephens Retains Counsel

Stephens retained attorney Terry O’Reilly and his firm O’Reilly & Collins (O’Reilly) to represent them in the lawsuit with Fireman’s Fund. The two-page retainer agreement provided that O’Reilly would receive 40 percent of any recovery obtained after trial, granted a first lien to assure payment of fees, and provided: "In the event that there is no money recovered, attorneys shall recover nothing for their services." O’Reilly, however, did not provide Stephens with a copy of the retainer agreement signed by counsel.

a. O’Reilly is Defeated at Trial, Allegedly Abandons the Case, and is Forced into Bankruptcy

The insurance coverage lawsuit proceeded to trial. The law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP (Akin Gump) represented Fireman’s Fund at all relevant times. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Stephens, but the trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), awarding Stephens nothing. (Stephens XII, supra , 231 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1139–1142, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 683.) Thereafter, O’Reilly no longer represented Stephens in the case. On October 25, 2012, Michael Danko, an attorney and former O’Reilly partner, filed a Chapter 7 ( 11 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. ) involuntary bankruptcy petition against O’Reilly. Danko was the largest creditor, with a claim of more than $6 million against the bankruptcy estate.

On November 6, 2012, Credit Management Associates (CMA)—an entity claiming to be the assignee of O’Reilly—filed a notice of attorney lien in the trial court docket. CMA asserted that it had a "lien on any recovery in the [insurance coverage lawsuit]." CMA apparently used the wrong zip code on the service copy for Akin Gump, however, and the attorney lien was never received.

C. Appeal and Settlement

After the O’Reilly firm ceased representing the Stephens entities, they retained

255 Cal.Rptr.3d 604

Nina Shapirshteyn, a former O’Reilly associate, to represent them in the insurance coverage lawsuit. In November 2014, our colleagues in Division One of this court reversed the JNOV in favor of Fireman’s Fund. ( Stephens XII, supra , 231 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1146–1148, 1151, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 683.) However, the court did not reinstate the jury verdict. Instead, the court interpreted the jury verdict as a conditional verdict, entitling the Stephens entities to compensation only if they actually made repairs to the insured warehouse. ( Id. at p. 1143, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 683.) Based on that interpretation, this court remanded the case for further proceedings. ( Id. at p. 1151, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 683.)

42 Cal.App.5th 555

In December 2015, the Stephens entities and Fireman’s Fund settled their dispute for $5.8 million.² The written settlement agreement expressly determined the allocation of the settlement proceeds—specifically, that the proceeds would be paid solely to the Stephens entities and Shapirshteyn. The Stephens entities represented during the negotiations and in the agreement that no one else was entitled to any portion of the settlement. The Stephens entities further agreed to indemnify and hold Fireman’s Fund harmless if anyone claimed that they were entitled to any of the proceeds of the settlement.

D. Stephens and the Bankruptcy Trustee Agree to Hold the Proceeds in Escrow

In February 2016, Shapirshteyn provided a copy of the settlement agreement to the trustee in the O’Reilly bankruptcy. The trustee claimed that the estate was entitled to 40 percent of the settlement, while Stephens contended that nothing was owed to the estate. Shapirshteyn stated that she would deposit 40 percent of the settlement funds with the bankruptcy court and file an interpleader complaint. However, the trustee instead directed Shapirshteyn to hold the 40 percent in her client trust account until the estate’s claim was resolved. She agreed to do so.³

E. Danko Obtains Stephens’s Litigation File From the Trustee

In June 2016, Stephens requested the trustee to return "all client papers and property, including but not limited to all emails and billing records," to Stephens under rule 3-700(D) of the Rules of Professional Conduct ⁴ (Rule 3-700(D)), which then required the return of all client materials and property upon the termination of representation. Despite several follow-up requests, the trustee did not return the file to Stephens or acknowledge that he possessed it.

In August 2016, the trustee gave Danko full access to O’Reilly’s electronic servers and physical documents, including Stephens’s confidential client file, without notifying Stephens. Danko then used "specific search criteria" to identify "correspondence related to the claim against Stephens and the underlying Fireman’s Fund litigation," including "emails by O’Reilly [ ] to outside counsel, internal

255 Cal.Rptr.3d 605

emails discussing the case, emails with experts and...