Page 1
Attorney Has No Cause of Action Based on Reference to Mental Health Detention—C.A.
Opinion Says Reference in Declaration Filed in Superior Court to 72-Hour Hold Is Protected by Litigation Privilege
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A lawyer who previously practiced in Long Beach has failed to persuade the Court of Appeal for this district that he has viable causes of action against his ex-wife’s attorneys over a declaration by their client they client helped prepare and filed in Los Angeles Superior Court family law proceedings alluding to his having been subjected to incarceration under a 72-hour mental health hold.
The lawyer, Jeffrey Olin, now a resident of the town of Pixley in Tulare County, also sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) and others based on the incarceration.
The ex-wife, the Los Angeles Superior Court, Commissioner Glenda Veasey and others were also sued but are not parties to the appeal.
Olin claimed that the law firm of Rombro & Manley, LLP, and attorneys Roger Rombro, and Melinda A. Manley—collectively denominated “R&M” by Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild of Div. One in her unpublished opinion, filed Thursday—invaded his privacy by making public the fact of his detention.
W&I Code §5150
That detention was pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code §5150(a) which says, in part:
“When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to themselves, or gravely disabled, a peace officer…may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services.”
The hold was placed based on a filing by Olin in the family law court saying he was suicidal but was still alive because he had “a list of four people who need to precede him.”
Olin contended that the declaration alluding to the detention ran afoul of §5328 of that code. That says that “[a]ll information and records obtained in the course of providing services under” specified divisions of the code, including the division containing §5150 “to either voluntary or involuntary recipients of services are confidential.”
Sec. 5330(a) provides that “[a]ny person may bring an action against an individual who has willfully and knowingly released confidential information or records concerning him or her in violation of this chapter….”
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gail Killefer sustained, without leave to amend, R&M’s demurrer and granted their special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16.
Rothschild’s Opinion
In her opinion affirming the judgment and orders, Rothschild wrote:
“Jeffrey argues that the fact of his ‘having been subjected to a...5150 hold’ constitutes ‘confidential medical information’ protected from disclosure under section 5328. We are aware of no case, and Jeffrey cites none, holding that the fact of an individual being detained under a section 5150 hold is ‘information’ of the type section 5328 protects. We need not resolve this issue, however, because even accepting, for the purposes of Jeffrey’s arguments on appeal, that section 5328 protects against disclosure of the fact that an individual was detained on a section 5150 hold, we agree with the trial court that the litigation privilege bars any cause of action based on the R&M defendants disclosing this information by filing Kelly’s declaration.”
Killefer also sustained, without leave to amend, a demurrer filed by LASD. Rothschild said:
“[W]e conclude the complaint does not allege any LASD policy or practice, as it must to support Jeffrey’s federal civil rights causes of action against LASD. We further conclude that the actions of the individual LASD personnel in the complaint cannot provide a basis for LASD to be held vicariously liable, because these individuals are employees of Los Angeles County (the County), not LASD.”
The case is Olin v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, B324159.
Previous Cases
Olin represented himself.
Douglas J. Collodel and Gretchen S. Carner of the downtown Los Angeles firm of Clyde & Co US LLP represented Rombro & Manley, S. Roger Rombro and Melinda A. Manley. Anita Susan Brenner of the Pasadena firm of Torres & Brenner acted for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
Olin has not been declared a vexatious litigant although he has lost more than five times in the past seven years, representing himself. Two of those losses came in litigation over a domestic violence restraining order Veasey granted in favor of Olin’s ex-wife—one loss occurring in the Superior Court and the other in the Court of Appeal in Olin v. Olin, B295416.
He sued the METNEWS and others in connection with a news report on the opinion in Olin v. Olin. A Tulare Superior Court judge granted an anti-SLAPP motion and the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed in Olin v. Grace, F083969.
Olin also lost in the Los Angeles Superior Court in Olin v. Silver, 19STCV25223. Judge Gary Y. Tanaka granted a judgment in favor of defendants Steven Scott Silver and Olin’s ex-wife, Kelly Rene Olin.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company