Somo v. Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough
In connection with their purchase of allegedly contaminated real property, plaintiffs and appellants Adel and Muntaha Somo sued the property seller's attorneys, defendants and respondents Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, P.C. (Jones Waldo), John Palmer, Timothy Anderson and Sean Sullivan (at times collectively Jones Waldo or the attorney defendants), for fraud and conspiracy, in part alleging the attorney defendants had agreed to conceal and misrepresent known facts concerning soil and groundwater contamination on and around the property. Applying the "agent-immunity rule," the trial court sustained Jones Waldo's demurrer to plaintiffs' third amended complaint without leave to amend. On appeal from the ensuing judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs contend in part that they alleged facts demonstrating a civil conspiracy or aiding and abetting the commission of a tort premised on the attorney defendants' violation of independent duties owed to them. As Court shall explain, we conclude that plaintiffs cannot state a cause of action for fraud or conspiracy against the attorney defendants. Nor can plaintiffs amend their pleading to state a cause of action for civil aiding and abetting fraud because such a claim is barred by the agent's immunity rule. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on Somo v. Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough