Rein v. Pacific Bell






Filed 4/25/11 Rein v. Pacific Bell CA2/8







NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.




IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

ROBERT S. REIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.

B223403 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC410763)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Peter D. Lichtman, Judge. Affirmed.

Johnson & Johnson, Neville L. Johnson, Douglas L. Johnson and James T. Ryan for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Egan O'Mally & Avenatti, Jason M. Frank and Scott H. Sims; AT&T Services, Inc. Legal Department and Gleam O. Davis for Defendant and Respondent.

____________________________

This appeal arises from a lawsuit brought about by the actions of a private investigator, Anthony Pellicano. Robert S. Rein, sued Pellicano, the lawyers who hired him, and Pacific Bell Telephone Company (PacBell). Rein alleges the defendants recorded confidential telephone conversations he had with the former wife of Kirk Kerkorian about a child support matter. Here, we deal only with PacBell, which filed a demurrer arguing that Rein's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court sustained PacBell's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed Rein's action against PacBell. Rein appeals and we affirm.
FACTS
In accord with the usual standard of review from a ruling on a demurrer, we deem the facts alleged in the operative pleading to be true, and we do not consider the plaintiff's possible inability to prove the claims at trial. (Desai v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1115.) With this standard in mind, these are the material facts in this case:
Rein is an attorney. During a time frame from March 15, 2002, to May 16, 2002, Rein had confidential telephone conversations with Lisa B. concerning a child support matter between Ms. B. and her former husband, Kirk Kerkorian. Unbeknownst to Rein, Kerkorian's lawyers had conspired with Pellicano to place an illegal wiretap on Ms. B.'s telephone line, and a number of Rein's confidential conversations with Ms. B. were intercepted and recorded. PacBell employees provided assistance to Pellicano that allowed him to put the wiretap on Ms. B.'s telephone line.
The Operative Pleading
In April 2009, Rein filed a complaint for statutory, special and general damages against Pellicano, the lawyers who hired him, and PacBell. In July 2009, Rein filed his operative first amended complaint (FAC). Pellicano and the lawyers were not involved in the trial court proceedings on PacBell's demurrer, and they are not involved in the current appeal, and we limit our discussions of the defendant parties to PacBell, except where needed for clarity. Rein's FAC alleged six causes of action, listed respectively, as to PacBell: unlawful wiretapping (Pen. Code, §§ 631 & 637.2 [authorizing a civil action]); unlawful eavesdropping (§§ 632 & 637.2); common law â€