Filed 5/21/14 Lifeline Funding v. Johnston CA4/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION ONE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

LIFELINE FUNDING, LLC, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

CARTER JOHNSTON et al., 

 Defendants and Appellants. 

 D063745 

 (Super. Ct. No. 37-2011-000701164- 

 CU-FR-EC) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joel R. 

Wohlfeil, Judge. Affirmed. 

 The Law Office of Richard L. Knight and Richard L. Knight for Defendants and 

Appellants. 

 Jones Day and Edward P. Swan, Jr., for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

 Plaintiff Lifeline Funding, LLC doing business as Us Claims (Lifeline), a 

litigation funding company, provided litigation funding to defendants Deborah 

Tumlinson and Douglas Tumlinson (together, the Tumlinsons) at the request of their 

attorney, defendant Carter Johnston. That funding was sought for litigation the 
2 

Tumlinsons and Johnston represented they filed related to damages their home in 

Ramona suffered as a result of a wildfire. 

 Lifeline thereafter filed a lawsuit against the Tumlinsons and Johnston claiming 

that the Tumlinsons, through Johnston, misrepresented that they had settled their case 

against SDG&E for $2.49 million, and also that Johnston falsely represented that he acted 

as their attorney in that litigation. After a four-day bench trial, the court found the 

Tumlinsons and Johnston liable for fraud and the Tumlinsons liable for conversion and 

breach of contract, awarding Lifeline $1,559,119 in compensatory damages, as well as 

punitive damages in the amount of $6,000 against Johnston and $60,000 against the 

Tumlinsons. 

 On appeal, the Tumlinsons and Johnston assert that (1) the court erred in finding 

liability for fraud because Lifeline did not reasonably rely on their misrepresentations, (2) 

there is no substantial evidence to support liability for conversion, (3) there is no 

substantial evidence to support liability for punitive damages, (4) the court erred in 

denying Deborah Tumlinson's request to fire her attorney during trial, and (5) the court 

erred in refusing to continue the trial when she was hospitalized. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 A. Factual Background 

 Lifeline is a litigation funding company based in Moorestown, New Jersey. The 

Tumlinsons lived in a home in Ramona, California. After a wildfire damaged their 

residence, the Tumlinsons joined litigation related to the fire that was brought against 

SDG&E. After their original attorney, Gerald Singleton, terminated his representation of 
3 

the Tumlinsons due to their failure to respond to his requests for information, they 

represented themselves in propria persona. At no time did Johnston represent the 

Tumlinsons during that litigation. 

 Despite the fact that Johnston did not represent the Tumlinsons during the SDG&E 

litigation, he applied for litigation funding from Lifeline on behalf of the Tumlinsons. In 

applying for the funding, Johnston repeatedly misrepresented that he was the Tumlinsons' 

attorney in the SDG&E litigation. In applying for the funding, Johnston and the 

Tumlinsons falsely represented that they had settled their case against SDG&E for $2.49 

million. 

 Lifeline undertook an investigation prior to authorizing the funding for the 

Tomlinsons' litigation. Their representative, Rudolph DeGeorge II, spoke with Johnston 

on the phone, and Johnston confirmed the representations he had previously made and 

described the mediation conference that resulted in the alleged settlement. DeGeorge 

also spoke on the phone with Mrs. Tumlinson, who provided the Tumlinsons' social 

security numbers so that Lifeline could ensure that the Tumlinsons had no judgments or 

liens that would prevent the litigation funding. Mrs. Tumlinson confirmed Johnston's 

representations concerning the settlement. 

 Johnston and the Tumlinsons also sent Lifeline pleadings purportedly from the 

SDG&E litigation with the attorney caption whited out to conceal the identity of their 

former attorney as their representative in that litigation. They also sent Lifeline a draft 

settlement agreement with a signature page that represented Johnston was their attorney. 
4 

The draft agreement contained a handwritten note from Mrs. Tumlinson stating that she 

and Mr. Tumlinson had initialed the agreement and sent it to SDG&E. 

 Based upon those representations, Lifeline agreed to provide over $700,000 in 

funding to the Tumlinsons, in exchange for the Tumlinsons selling to Lifeline an interest 

in the $2.49 million settlement they had reached with SDG&E. They have not repaid 

those funds. 

 B. Procedural Background 

In October 2011 Lifeline filed a complaint against Johnston and the Tumlinsons, 

alleging fraud, conversion, breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith 

and fair dealing. Prior to trial, the Tumlinsons and Johnston agreed to waive their right to 

a jury trial. 

 Thereafter, Lifeline brought a motion seeking to disqualify Johnston as the 

Tumlinsons' counsel based upon the fact he was also named as a defendant in the case. 

The Tumlinsons opposed the motion, asserting they made an "informed decision" to 

retain him as counsel and that disqualification would force them to "seek other counsel 

and bring a new attorney up to date at great expense." Based upon the Tumlinson's 

position, the court denied Lifeline's motion. 

 However, on the first day of trial the Tumlinsons asked to fire Johnston and find 

new counsel. The court denied the motion as a delay tactic. Thereafter, Mrs. Tumlinson 

claimed to be ill. On the second day of trial, Mrs. Tumlinson claimed to have fainted 

outside the courtroom and the court continued the trial until the following day while she 

and Mr. Tumlinson went to the hospital. On the third and fourth days the court refused to 
5 

continue the trial further while the Tumlinsons chose to remain at the hospital and were 

represented in court by Johnston. The court permitted Johnston to present as testimony 

the Tumlinsons' depositions, to the extent they did not invoke the Fifth Amendment. 

 At the conclusion of trial, the court found the Tumlinsons and Johnston liable for 

fraud, and the Tumlinsons liable for conversion and breach of contract, and issued a 

statement of decision detailing its findings. In doing so, the court concluded that the 

Tumlinsons and Johnston made false or misleading representations with knowledge of 

their falsity, and that Lifeline actually relied on those representations. On the issue of 

whether Lifeline's reliance was reasonable, the court found the evidence to be conflicting. 

The court noted that (1) had Lifeline conducted its own search of the SDG&E litigation 

file, it would have discovered that Johnston was not the Tomlinsons' attorney; (2) if 

Lifeline had requested a fully executed settlement agreement defendants could not have 

produced one; and (3) Lifeline's own investigation revealed that the Tumlinsons had tax 

liens of over $50,000. 

 The court compared that with the evidence that (1) Johnston, an attorney with no 

history of discipline, corroborated the Tumlinsons' misrepresentations that he represented 

them in the SDG&E litigation and that there was a substantial settlement with an 

imminent distribution date; (2) the Tumlinsons and Johnston concealed their 

misrepresentations by sending pleadings with attorney information whited out; and (3) 

Johnston told Lifeline that the mediation that resulted in the settlement was partially 

confidential, explaining why they could not provide a fully executed settlement 

agreement. 
6 

 Ultimately, the court resolved the conflicting evidence in favor of Lifeline, 

concluding that Lifeline was entitled to assume that Johnston would uphold his legal and 

ethical duties to counsel his clients to do only legal and ethical acts and to use only those 

means consistent with the truth. 

DISCUSSION 

I. REASONABLE RELIANCE TO SUPPORT FRAUD CLAIM 

 The Tumlinsons do not contend that that they did not intentionally mislead 

Lifeline to obtain funding. Instead, they assert that they are not liable for fraud because 

Lifeline did not reasonably rely on their intentional misrepresentations. This contention 

is unavailing. 

 A. Applicable Authority 

 When reliance is an element of a cause of action, that reliance must be reasonable. 

(Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1239.) "Reliance exists 

when the misrepresentation or nondisclosure was an immediate cause of the plaintiff's 

conduct which altered his or her legal relations, and when without such misrepresentation 

or nondisclosure he or she would not, in all reasonable probability, have entered into the 

contract or other transaction." (Ibid.) "Except in the rare case where the undisputed facts 

leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion, the question of whether a plaintiff's 

reliance is reasonable is a question of fact." (Blankenheim v. E. F. Hutton & Co. (1990) 

217 Cal.App.3d 1463, 1475.) 

 " 'A lawyer communicating on behalf of a client with a nonclient may not . . . [¶] 

. . . knowingly make a false statement of material fact . . . to the nonclient . . . .' 
7 

[Citation.] . . . 'A misrepresentation can occur through direct statement or through 

affirmation of a misrepresentation of another, as when a lawyer knowingly affirms a 

client's false or misleading statement.' " (Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, 

Simon & Gladstone (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 54, 69, quoting Rest.3d Law Governing 

Lawyers, § 98, com. c, p. 58.) Shafer further noted: " 'In general, a lawyer who makes a 

fraudulent misrepresentation is subject to liability to the injured person when the other 

elements of the tort are established . . . .' [Citation.] This rule 'applies equally to 

statements made to a sophisticated person, such as to a lawyer representing another 

client, as well as to an unsophisticated person.' [Citation.] 'Misrepresentation is not part 

of proper legal assistance . . . .' " (Shafer, supra, at pp. 69-70, quoting Rest.3d, supra, 

§ 98, com. g, p. 59, com. b, p. 58, § 56, com. f, p. 418.) 

 We review a court's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard of 

review. (Ermoian v. Desert Hospital (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 475, 500-501.) "Under the 

substantial evidence standard of review, our review begins and ends with the 

determination as to whether, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence, 

contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the trial court's factual determinations. 

[Citations.] Substantial evidence is evidence of ponderable legal significance, reasonable 

in nature, credible, and of solid value. [Citation.] The substantial evidence standard of 

review applies to both express and implied findings of fact made by the court in its 

statement of decision." (Id. at p. 501.) 
8 

 B. Analysis 

 As we have discussed, ante, the evidence shows that the Tumlinsons and Johnston 

repeatedly misrepresented that Johnston was the Tumlinson's attorney in the SDG&E 

litigation and that the Tumlinsons had settled their case against SDG&E for $2.49 

million. 

 The Tumlinsons and Johnston assert, however, that Lifeline did not reasonably 

rely on these misrepresentations because its representative, DeGeorge, was an attorney 

with experience in these types of matters and because DeGeorge discovered that Mrs. 

Tumlinson had lied about not having tax liens. The judge did consider these facts and 

concluded that they weighed against Lifeline's position. Ultimately, however, the court 

concluded that the Tumlinsons and Johnston's concealment of the truth of more relevant 

facts, such as Johnston's representation he represented the Tumlinsons in the SDG&E 

litigation and that $2.49 million was forthcoming, outweighed those facts. In assessing 

whether substantial evidence supports the court's findings, we " ' "do not reweigh the 

evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient 

facts to support the findings of the trial court." ' " (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) 

 Further, Tumlinsons and Johnston's contention that Lifeline's investigation was 

negligent is unavailing because they committed intentional fraud: " 'Negligence on the 

part of the plaintiff in failing to discover the falsity of a statement is no defense when the 

misrepresentation was intentional rather than negligent.' " (Alliance Mortgage Co. v. 

Rothwell, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1239-1240.) 
9 

 The Tumlinsons and Johnston's citation to Carpenter v. Hamilton (1936) 18 

Cal.App.2d 69 for the proposition that, having undertaken its own investigation and 

discovered the falsity of one representation, Lifeline may not rely on other statements 

made by them is unavailing. As the California Supreme Court explained in in Shearer v. 

Cooper (1943) 21 Cal.2d 695, 704, the rule announced in Carpenter was "to close the 

door to false claims of reliance" and cannot be applied to "afford with impunity the 

opportunity for fraud." Here the question is whether Lifeline's reliance was reasonable, 

not whether Lifeline actually relied on the misrepresentations. It is undisputed that 

Lifeline relied on their representations. Moreover, as we have noted, negligence in 

discovering the falsity of a representation is no defense when the misrepresentation was 

intentional. (Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1239-1240.) 

 Similarly, the Tumlinsons' and Johnston's reliance on Guido v. Koopman (1991) 1 

Cal.App.4th 837 (Guido) for the proposition that as an attorney DeGeorge could not have 

reasonably relied on "legal matters" is unavailing. There, the Court of Appeal held that 

an attorney, who was injured while horseback riding, could not avoid a signed liability 

release based on the fact the owner of the equestrian facility stated the release was 

"meaningless." (Id. at p. 841.) The Court of Appeal concluded that any such reliance 

was not reasonable as a matter of law. (Id. at pp. 843-844.) 

Guido does not assist the Tumlinsons and Johnston. First, whether a release is 

valid is a legal conclusion. A plaintiff "may not justifiably rely upon mere statements of 

opinion, including legal conclusions drawn from a true set of facts." (Seeger v. Odell 
10 

(1941) 18 Cal.2d 409, 414.) Here, by contrast, the Tumlinsons and Johnston represented 

as fact that they had settled with SDG&E. 

 Second, the validity of the release was verifiable in Guido, particularly by an 

attorney who used releases in her law practice. (Guido, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 843.) 

Here, by contrast, the Tumlinsons and Johnston represented that the settlement could not 

be corroborated because of its confidentiality clause. "[W]hen a fact is peculiarly within 

the knowledge of the person making the representation and not within the knowledge of 

the person to whom it is made, the latter has the right to rely upon the representation of 

the former respecting such fact." (Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn. v. 

Greenbach (1950 98 Cal.App.2d 220, 234.) 

II. CONVERSION CLAIM AND AWARD OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES 

 The Tumlisons assert that because the fraud claim was not supported by the 

evidence, the claims for conversion and punitive damages likewise fail. Thus, because 

we have concluded there is substantial evidence of reasonable reliance to support the 

fraud claim, this contention is unavailing. 

III. DENIAL OF REQUEST TO FIRE ATTORNEY JOHNSTON AND FOR 

CONTINUANCE 

 The Tumlinsons and Johnston assert the court erred in denying Mrs. Tumlinson's 

request to fire her attorney during trial and in not continuing the trial while she was in the 

hospital. We reject these contentions. 
11 

 A. Applicable Authority 

 As the Court of Appeal stated in County of San Bernardino v. Doria Mining & 

Engineering Corp. (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 776, 783-784 (Doria): " 'Parties litigant have 

no absolute right to insist upon a change of counsel at the last moment before the time set 

for the commencement of the trial, where such change of counsel requires a continuance 

in order that the case may be properly prepared for trial.' "

 "We cannot permit the courts to become a sanctuary for chronic procrastination 

and irresponsibility on the part of either litigants or their attorneys. The trial judge must 

assert his power and 'vigorously insist upon cases being heard and determined with as 

great promptness as the exigencies of the case will permit.' " (Doria, supra, 72 

Cal.App.3d at pp. 780-781.) 

 We review the trial court's denial of a continuance under the abuse of discretion 

standard. (Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 716.) 

 B. Analysis 

 Here, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying Mrs. Tumlinson's 

request for a continuance to retain new counsel as a delay tactic. A party waiting until 

the date of a hearing to move for a continuance to obtain new counsel has the appearance 

of a "delaying tactic." (In re Marriage of Falcone v. Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 

823.) This is particularly so given that the Tumlisons had earlier opposed Lifeline's 

motion to disqualify Johnston. Further, the court acted within its discretion in denying 

the motion given that Lifeline's representative DeGeorge had flown from New Jersey to 

California, prepared for trial, and secured witnesses in reliance on the trial date. 
12 

 The court also did not abuse its discretion when it refused to continue the trial 

when Mrs. Tumlinson purportedly fainted and then went to the hospital. A party's illness 

"does not ipso facto require" a continuance. (Kalmus v. Kalmus (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 

405, 414, overruled on other grounds in Hudson v. Hudson (1959) 52 Cal.2d 735, 738-

742.) "[T]he court may take into consideration the legal sufficiency of the showing in 

support of the motion and the good faith of the moving party." (Ibid.) The court noted 

that Mrs. Tumlinson appeared to be a reluctant participant in her trial. As Lifeline 

pointed out, Mrs. Tumlinson also used purported health issues as a delay tactic in her 

SDG&E litigation, which led to her original attorney terminating his representation. 

 Further, the Tumlinsons' choice to absent themselves from the trial after the court 

denied their request for a continuance does not show the court abused its discretion. The 

Tumlinsons were represented by Johnston, who continued to represent them in their 

absence. A civil litigant represented by counsel has no constitutional right to be present 

at trial. (Province v. Center for Women's Health & Family Birth (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 

1673, 1686, overruled on other grounds in Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 

Cal.4th 30, 41.) 

 Finally, the court agreed to admit Mrs. Tumlinson's deposition testimony as to 

matters in which she did not invoke the Fifth Amendment. The court also agreed to 

admit Mr. Tumlinson's deposition testimony if he voluntarily chose to be absent from the 

trial. 

 For all the foregoing reasons, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying the request for a continuance of trial. 
13 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal to Lifeline. 

NARES, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

McCONNELL, P. J. 

IRION, J.