 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Osijo v. Home Insurance Company9/7/2004
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiff and appellant Abedowale O. Osijo (plaintiff) settled a personal injury action in 1991. Since that time, plaintiff has filed numerous lawsuits against the insurers and attorneys involved in that case and subsequent litigation. In this action, plaintiff, in pro. per., filed suit against defendants and respondents The Home Insurance Company (Home); Risk Enterprise Management Ltd. (REM); Burnham Brown; Georgia Ann Michell-Langsam (Michell); and Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney (MPBF), James A. Murphy and Antoinette W. Farrell (collectively, the MPBF parties) for fraud and invasion of privacy.
In resolving the issues through several demurrers, motions for summary adjudication, and a bench trial, the court found the claims barred by the statute of limitations and the litigation privilege. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORIES
This case is a procedural and factual maze with litigation in both the state and federal trial and appellate courts spanning over 15 years. We do our best to summarize it here.
In 1988, plaintiff was shot several times while he was working as a security guard at a housing project in Oakland, California. In 1989, plaintiff filed a personal injury action against Housing Resources Management, Inc., and his employer, the security guard company, among others. (See Osijo v. Housing Resources Management, Inc., et al., Super. Ct. Alameda County, 1991, No. 649881-6.) Plaintiff retained Michell to represent him. All the defendants were apparently insolvent or judgment proof, but there was an applicable insurance policy-Housing Resources Management, Inc., was insured under a Home general commercial liability policy. Home retained the law firms of Larson & Burnham and MPBF to defend. In July 1991, the matter settled for $250,000. However, the following day, plaintiff notified his counsel that he wanted out of the agreement. The trial court nonetheless entered judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. Plaintiff appealed, and the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. The California Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for review. (See Osijo v. Housing Resources Management, Inc., et al. (July 16, 1992, A055045) [nonpub. opn.], review den. Sept. 30, 1992, S028364.)
Thereafter, plaintiff filed a legal malpractice action against Michell, her law firm and several other attorneys. Plaintiff alleged his attorneys failed to disclose a prior relationship with Home and Larson & Burnham-specifically that they were insured by Home for legal malpractice and that Larson & Burnham was representing them in another professional negligence action. Plaintiff alleged his attorneys set up a bogus settlement conference, "tricked" and "snookered" him into signing the settlement agreement, and took too much of the settlement proceeds. (See Osijo v. Ganong and Michell, et al., Super. Ct. Contra Costa County, 1994, No. C92-05352.) The defendants filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Michell was originally defended by Burnham Brown (the successor to Larson & Burnham), but was later defended by the MPBF parties. The malpractice claim went to trial in 1994 and was decided against plaintiff. The defendants were awarded in excess of $27,000 on the cross-complaint.
Plaintiff appealed, and the F
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|