Page 1
C.A.: Client Not Liable for Alleged Attempt by Lawyer to Photograph Woman in Bathroom
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A client cannot be held liable for the alleged conduct of its lawyer in attempting to photograph one of the plaintiffs while in the bathroom of her home, the Court of Appeal for this district has held.
The unpublished opinion by Justice Helen I. Bendix of Div. One affirms a summary judgment granted by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard L. Fruin Jr. in favor of defendants/respondents Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC and Thrifty Oil Co. in a lawsuit for invasion of privacy. The plaintiffs, Rebecca Rickley and Natasha Roit. contend that George Stephan, a shareholder in the Buchalter Law Firm, while on their property in connection with a court-ordered inspection, attempted to take a photo of Roit through a window.
Fruin had authorized the taking of photographs, for evidence-gathering purposes relating to a real property dispute, but specified that “[t]he interior of the home may not be intentionally photographed.” Rickley alleges that she stopped Stephan as he was about to photograph Roit.
Roit is an attorney in Riverside County and the founder of a mediation firm.
Theories Properly Rejected
Bendix said that Fruin correctly rejected the theories of the plaintiffs/appellants that Stephan was the agent of Tesoro and Thrifty and that they ratified his conduct by not investigating the invasion-of-privacy allegation and terminating his services.
She wrote:
“[A]ppellants fail to counter respondents’ assertion in their appellate briefing that ‘[t]here was no evidence that Buchalter, or George Stephan in particular, was hired for any purpose other than to serve as outside litigation counsel….’ Respondents also assert, and appellants do not contest in their reply, that respondents ‘did not authorize, direct, or induce Stephan to perform the wrongful conduct alleged in the complaint.’ Appellants thus tacitly agree with respondents on these points.”
Scope of Agency
The jurist noted that Rickley and Roit acknowledged that Stephan engaged in ‘nonlegal’ conduct not within the scope of. . . the employment of trial counsel.” In light of that and “their failure to establish triable issues regarding whether (1) Stephan was respondents’ employee, and (2) respondents had hired Stephan for any purpose other than to serve as outside litigation counsel, no rational factfinder could conclude that the alleged misconduct of which appellants complain fell within the scope of Stephan’s agency relationship with respondents.”
Bendix declared:
“Appellants’ theory of vicarious liability thus fails as a matter of law.”
She added:
“Because no rational factfinder could conclude that Stephan purported to act on respondents’ behalf, appellants’ ratification theory fails as a matter of law.”
The case is Rickley v. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co., B332899.
Roit, joined by Malibu attorney Jeff Dominic Price, represented herself and Rickley on appeal. Matthew S. Covington, C. Dana Hobart, and Efrat M. Cogan of Buchalter acted for Tesoro and Thrifty.
On Oct. 16, 2020, Div. One, in an opinion by then-Justice Victoria Chaney (now retired) affirmed Fruin’s order denying Tesoro’s anti-SLAPP motion, saying:
“We agree that Tesoro’s alleged attempt to photograph Roit in her bathroom was extraneous to the court-ordered property inspection, and was thus unprotected by the anti-SLAPP statute.”
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company