Kelly v. Teeters

• Decision Date: 06 January 2015
• Docket Number: A141503
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PATRICK KELLY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JACK EUGENE TEETERS, As Executor, etc. et al., Defendants and Respondents.

PATRICK KELLY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JACK EUGENE TEETERS, As Executor, etc. et al., Defendants and Respondents.

A141503

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

January 6, 2015

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. GCG-13-535823)

This is the second appeal arising from an alleged employment relationship between appellant Patrick Kelly and Thomas White, now deceased. Appellant's first case against White resulted in a judgment in favor of White's estate, which this court recently affirmed. (Case No. A138423.) The present case arises from the same underlying facts and asserts some of the same and some different causes of action. The trial court sustained demurrers to all causes of action without leave to amend and entered judgment for respondents. Appellant contends the court abused its discretion. We affirm the judgment as to six of the eight causes of action alleged in the complaint. As to two causes of action, however, we agree with appellant that the trial court erred. We reverse the judgment with respect to these causes of action and remand the matter for further proceedings.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

The factual background, as described in appellant's complaint, begins with Kelly meeting White in Los Angeles in 2002, and White agreeing to fund improvements toKelly's "public affairs" website. At White's suggestion, Kelly went to Thailand and hired programmers and artists to make website improvements. In 2003, Kelly learned that White had been incarcerated in Thailand due to an extradition request by Mexico, where he had been charged with sexually abusing 10 boys. White told Kelly that he was innocent and that he could not continue to fund the website until after he was released; Kelly stated his intention to return to California. In subsequent meetings at the jail, Kelly suggested he might be able to help White and White proposed paying Kelly a monthly "stipend" of $2,000; both parties understood that Kelly would be paid "considerably more" from bonus agreements they anticipated making after identifying specific projects Kelly would undertake to help White obtain release. White hired Kelly on December 23, 2003, to provide internet research services, visit White, take his instructions and advise him.

The complaint alleged that at the time they entered their agreements, appellant and White were both United States citizens who understood their stays in Thailand and subsequently Mexico would be temporary and expected their agreements would be governed by California law. Appellant alleged that his work at White's direction was performed in San Francisco, Thailand, Cambodia, and Mexico.

The complaint alleged that throughout appellant's employment by White, White's attorneys, family, and friends advised him to sever ties with Kelly due to rumors and suspicions that Kelly was an FBI agent or a pedophile whose involvement with White could make White look guilty of the charges against him. Appellant alleged that his responsibility to give White his opinion on the quality of White's legal representation often put him "at odds" with White's attorneys, and that White's friends and family members requested gifts and money from White and resented appellant's involvement because it made White less dependent upon them.

According to the complaint, after White's United States passport was revoked on June 30, 2004, White's attorneys unsuccessfully attempted to acquire second citizenship for him. White did not want to be deported to the United States due to his lack of valid travel documents if he won his extradition case, because he had been indicted in theUnited States on charges related to sex tourism. Appellant had ideas for how to obtain second citizenship for White, including convincing "people in high places" that White was innocent based upon evidence he was being falsely accused as part of an extortion plan, and having White move his multimillion dollar charitable foundation from Mexico to the country that would offer citizenship. Appellant alleged that the task of acquiring second citizenship for White involved "considerable risk" including being falsely arrested or kidnapped due to White's wealth.

White told appellant that if he succeeded in obtaining second citizenship, White would buy appellant "a brand new Mercedes S-500 as a bonus." Appellant preferred a cash equivalent, and the two reached an oral agreement under which, among other detailed terms, after appellant acquired legal citizenship and a legal passport for White, White would pay appellant a bonus of $350,000. White did not want the agreement reduced to writing because he did not want his friends to know what he agreed to pay appellant and because everything he signed was reviewed by prison officials who might forward an agreement to federal officials.

White was extradited to Mexico on July 31, 2005. As part of his effort to obtain second citizenship for White, appellant brought the Attorney General of Cambodia to the jail because the Attorney General wanted to judge White's character before proceeding with a citizenship application.

On or about June 9, 2006, appellant acquired legal citizenship for White along with a valid passport containing a Thai visa. White failed to pay the promised bonus. Appellant sent White several emails asking why his bonus was not being paid. White sent appellant an "angry email" stating he was going to give appellant a $25,000 bonus and double his $2,000 monthly salary. In a telephone call, White said he was not going to give appellant the full $350,000 at that time because he was worried appellant would abandon him if he was no longer financially dependent upon him. White reiterated his concerns that others not find out how much he was paying appellant. When appellant reminded White of their agreement, White reminded appellant of his promise to finish funding website improvements and other plans to partner in businesses with appellantonce he was released from prison. White "represented and guaranteed" that appellant "would eventually be paid the full amount of $350,000 at a time no later than the date White was released from prison." Having no other option, appellant "agreed to extend payment terms on the contract conditional upon . . . understandings" that appellant would be paid $25,000 "now," that appellant's agreement to modify the original payment terms was "conditional upon White's guarantee" that appellant "would eventually be paid the full outstanding balance of $325,000 in any circumstance and without White imposing any further conditions or delay," that White would continue to employ appellant at least until he was released from prison, and that White would continue funding the website improvements, with funding to "recommence on a date no later than the date he was release [sic] from prison." White paid appellant $25,000.

In the period 2005 to 2007, appellant traveled to Mexico and San Francisco on multiple occasions, assisting White at White's request. Appellant "engaged in numerous important projects on White's behalf" for which it was "understood" he would receive a bonus, but it was difficult to discuss additional compensation because appellant "had taken on very important roles in White's defense and did not want to appear as using that circumstance to place unfair pressure upon White in any bonus negotiation." When appellant raised the subject, White said he would discuss it later.

On May 31, 2007, after White had been convicted in Mexico, appellant suggested White raise his monthly salary to $9,000 and pay him a bonus of $300,000. White responded that he would rather give appellant a large bonus than a large raise. The two entered an oral agreement under which appellant would convince a new legal team he had located to represent White on an appeal of the rape conviction and successfully negotiate a retainer agreement; White would pay appellant a bonus of 15 to 20 percent of the total retainer agreement if the new team succeeded in getting the rape conviction overturned; appellant would forfeit any right to a bonus for the work he had already done if the conviction was not overturned; and White would raise appellant's monthly salary to $5,000.

Appellant successfully negotiated a $3.3 million retainer agreement, and on November 1, 2007, the Mexican Supreme Court overturned White's rape conviction. When appellant requested payment of the promised bonus, White initially refused to discuss it and attempted to delay payment by suggesting that appellant "might attempt to have White killed if [appellant] knew what was in White's will."

A few days later, White had a party at the jail for the legal team. White announced that when he was released he would fly everyone to Cambodia for a celebration party at which "he would provide several young virgins for each attorney . . . so they could have the time of their lives." Appellant was "shocked and embarrassed" because the attorneys had relied upon his assertions that White was a good man; he felt "shaken and numbed by the unthinkable possibility that White may have actually been guilty of the charges against him."

Near the end of November, White offered to pay appellant a bonus of $100,000 instead of the minimum $495,000 to which they had agreed. Appellant rejected this offer and White insisted he would deal with the issue later. Appellant submitted invoices for November and December showing the salary increase from $4,000 to $5,000 pursuant to his agreement with White. In January 2008,¹ appellant became aware that White was assigning to others tasks that had previously been appellant's,...