Kuigoua v. Park (Nov. 10, 2025)

Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
California (CA)
Court
California Supreme Court
Decided
Nov. 10, 2025
Disposition
Dismissed
Majority
Kumar (J.) (unanimous Court)
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.Kuigoua v. ParkCourt of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California. | November 10, 2025 | Not Reported inCal.Rptr. | 2025 WL 3139621Document DetailsKeyCite:KeyCite Red Flag Unpublished/noncitablestandard Citation:Kuigoua v. Park, No. B343489, 2025 WL 3139621 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov.10, 2025)All Citations:Not Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2025 WL 3139621Search DetailsSearch Query:adv: (openai "artificial intelligence" chatgpt "google gemini" "westlawcocounsel" "large language model") (hallucinat! fake fictitious spuriousnonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined /p (gpt ai "artificialintelligence" chatgpt chaton perplexity openai copilot "google gemini""google bard" grok "mata v. avianca" claude llm llms)) (hallucinat! fakefictitious spurious nonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined) +3(precedent case "legal authority" "legal case") & DATE(aft 1/1/2023)Jurisdiction:CaliforniaDelivery DetailsDate:November 16, 2025 at 10:00 AMDelivered By:Client ID:NOCLIENTIDOutlineAttorneys and LawFirms (p.1)Opinion (p.1)All Citations (p.4)
Kuigoua v. Park, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr. (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.1KeyCite Red Flag Unpublished/noncitable2025 WL 3139621Not Officially Published(Cal. Rules of Court, Rules8.1105 and 8.1110, 8.1115)Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115, restrictscitation of unpublished opinions in California courts.Court of Appeal, SecondDistrict, Division 5, California.Arno KUIGOUA, Plaintiff and Appellant,v.Carolyn Young PARK et al.,Defendants and Respondents.B343489|Filed November 10, 2025Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion ofcitation references that are incorrect or do not actuallyexist. These invalid citations appeared in the originalcourt opinion and have been preserved as written sincethey are part of the official record. Any links to theseinvalid citations have been removed.APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court ofLos Angeles County, Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Judge.Dismissed. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.20STCV11514)Attorneys and Law FirmsArno Kuigoua, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.Service Employees International Union, Local 1000,Anne M. Giese and Yuri Kvichko for Defendants andRespondents.OpinionMOOR, Acting P. J.*1 Plaintiff and appellant Arno Patrick Kuigouaappeals from a judgment of dismissal entered in favorof defendants and respondents Carolyn Young Parkand Service Employees’ International Union, Local1000 (SEIU Local 1000), in this action for legalmalpractice and breach of fiduciary duties. The trialcourt sustained the demurrer on the grounds thatunions and attorneys employed by unions are notsubject to claims for legal malpractice or breach offiduciary duty; instead, they may be subject to anunfair practice claim based on breach of the dutyof fair representation, which is governed exclusivelyby the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB).Kuigoua has not met his burden on appeal to show errorbecause his briefs fail to make cogent legal argumentsbased on applicable California law, and instead relyextensively on legal authorities that do not stand forthe proposition cited or are nonexistent. Therefore, wedismiss the appeal.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURALBACKGROUNDOn March 20, 2020, Kuigoua, represented byattorney Michael Labrum, filed a complaint againstattorney Carolyn Young Park and Doe defendants.On November 30, 2020, Kuigoua filed the operativeamended complaint against Park and Doe defendantsfor professional negligence and breach of fiduciaryduties. He alleged attorney Park agreed to providelegal services in an administrative action against theCalifornia Department of Veterans Affairs and fileda prehearing settlement conference statement on hisbehalf, but less than a month before a hearing about histermination requested to withdraw from representinghim. He further alleged Park and Doe defendants wererequired to use the skill of members of the profession,but Park failed to diligently obtain documents orsubpoena witnesses for the hearing, allowed conflictsof interest to interfere with her obligation to representKuigoua, and abandoned Kuigoua on the eve of trial.Park and Doe defendants also breached fiduciaryduties by failing to disclose conflicts of interest, and byabandoning Kuigoua on the eve of trial. On June 25,2024, Kuigoua filed an amendment substituting SEIULocal 1000 as a Doe defendant.
Kuigoua v. Park, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr. (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2On June 28, 2024, Park and SEIU Local 1000 filed ademurrer on the grounds that: (1) as a union attorney,Park was immune from individual liability for actionstaken on behalf of the union; (2) SEIU Local 1000 hadno attorney-client relationship with Kuigoua and didnot owe fiduciary duties to him, so both defendantshad no duties to Kuigoua that would give rise toprofessional negligence or breach of fiduciary dutyclaims; (3) the court lacked jurisdiction because anyaction alleging that a union acted negligently orbreached its duties in its representation of a member isessentially an unfair practice claim under the exclusivejurisdiction of the PERB; and (4) the complaintcontained no factual allegations regarding any actiontaken by SEIU Local 1000.On October 7, 2024, Kuigoua, now acting in pro.per., filed an opposition to the demurrer. He arguedthat in Park's role as in-house counsel for SEIULocal 1000 representing members in administrativematters, her legal guidance, including requests forwitness information, advice on document preparation,and scheduling meetings, created an expectation oflegal representation. He further argued that SEIU Local1000 is liable for Park's actions through the doctrineof respondeat superior as her employer. Because Parkacted in her professional capacity as SEIU Local1000's legal counsel, the union was responsible forher negligence. Park's actions went beyond her roleas union representative and included specific legaltasks outside the scope of union immunity. In addition,Kuigoua argued the PERB does not have jurisdictionover professional negligence claims based on Park'srepresentation, as an attorney, of Kuigoua. One of thecases that Kuigoua cited and purported to analyze insupport of his position was “Demers v. City of LosAngeles, 42 Cal.App.3d 519, 522 (1974).”*2 On October 18, 2024, Park and SEIU Local1000 filed a reply. They argued Kuigoua's argumentsand supporting law did not apply in the context ofunion representation. They explained that Kuigouahad cited several irrelevant precedents, which didnot support the arguments in the opposition, and atleast one citation, “Demers v. City of Los Angeles, 42Cal.App.3d 519, 522 (1974),” was not to any real casethat the respondents’ attorney could locate.On October 21, 2024, Kuigoua filed a supplementalopposition explaining precedents cited in hisopposition pleading and making additional arguments.On November 6, 2024, Kuigoua filed asecond supplemental opposition presenting additionalarguments. In neither of his supplemental pleadings didhe explain whether the reference to “Demers v. City ofLos Angeles, 42 Cal.App.3d 519, 522 (1974)” was atypographical error or a real case.A hearing was held on the demurrer on November12, 2024. No reporter's transcript or suitable substitutehas been included in the appellate record. The matterwas taken under submission. Later that day, the trialcourt issued a minute order sustaining the demurrerto the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty asto both defendants without leave to amend becauseneither Park, nor SEIU Local 1000, had a fiduciaryrelationship to Kuigoua. The court sustained thedemurrer to the cause of action for legal malpractice asto both defendants because Park was an agent of SEIULocal 1000, and therefore immune from prosecutionunder the holding of Peterson v. Kennedy (9th Cir.1985) 771 F.2d 1244, 1257 (Peterson), and SEIU Local1000 was not a lawyer or law firm, so not liablefor legal malpractice. The court ordered the amendedcomplaint dismissed without prejudice. Kuigoua fileda timely notice of appeal from the order of dismissal.1DISCUSSIONA. General Legal Principles Applicable to Unions,Attorneys Employed by Unions, and Union Members“A union does not owe a duty of due care to itsmembers .... Instead, unions owe a duty of fairrepresentation to their members, and this requires themto refrain from representing their members arbitrarily,discriminatorily, or in bad faith.” (Hussey v. OperatingEngineers Local Union No. 3 (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th1213, 1219 (Hussey).) “The duty of fair representationis not breached by mere negligence. (Castelli v.Douglas Aircraft Co. (9th Cir.1985) 752 F.2d 1480,1482.) A union is accorded wide latitude in therepresentation of its members and courts are reluctantto interfere with a union's decisions in representing itsmembers absent a showing of arbitrary exercise of theunion's power.” (Ibid.) A breach of the duty of fairrepresentation is considered an unfair labor practice
Kuigoua v. Park, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr. (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3(Paulsen v. Local No. 856 of Internat. Brotherhoodof Teamsters (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 823, 828–831),and pursuant to Government Code section 3514.5, thePERB has exclusive jurisdiction over unfair practicecharges.Well-established case law prohibits claims by a unionmember against an attorney employed or retained bythe union to represent the member in a labor dispute,except under specific circumstances not present inthis case. (Peterson, supra, 771 F.2d at pp. 1257–1259; Aragon v. Pappy, Kaplon, Vogel & Phillips(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 451, 458–464 (Aragon).)When an attorney is employed by the union torepresent a member in a labor dispute, no attorney-client relationship is formed between the attorneyand the member, either directly or as a third-partybeneficiary. (Aragon, supra, at pp. 463–464.)*3 In determining whether a claim falls withinthe PERB's exclusive jurisdiction, the label givento the claim by the plaintiff does not control,but rather jurisdiction is determined based on theconduct underlying the claim. (El Rancho UnifiedSchool Dist. v. National Education Assn. (1983)33 Cal.3d 946, 954, fn. 13.) A plaintiff may not,“through artful pleading, evade PERB's exclusivejurisdiction.” (City and County of San Francisco v.International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 39(2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 938, 945.)B. Standard of Review and Forfeiture of Contentionson AppealWe review an order sustaining a demurrer denovo, treating the demurrer as admitting all materialfacts, but without assuming the truth of contentions,deductions, or conclusions of law, to determinewhether the factual allegations are adequate to state acause of action under any legal theory. (Allen v. City ofSacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 51 (Allen).)It is the appellant's burden on appeal, however, to showthe demurrer was incorrectly sustained. (Allen, supra,234 Cal.App.4th at p. 52.) Each brief must “supporteach point by argument and, if possible, by citationof authority.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) An attorney or self-represented party presentinga brief to the court certifies to have met certainconditions, including that “[t]he claims, defenses,and other legal contentions therein are warranted byexisting law or by a nonfrivolous argument for theextension, modification, or reversal of existing law orthe establishment of new law.” (Code Civ. Proc., §128.7, subd. (b)(2).)When a contention is not supported by coherent legalargument or citation to legal authority, we may treat itas forfeited. (Allen, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 52;County of Sacramento v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th858, 861.) An appellant must cite valid legal authorityand explain how it applies to the appellant's argument.(Dinslage v. City and County of San Francisco (2016)5 Cal.App.5th 368, 379.) “We are not required toexamine undeveloped claims or to supply argumentsfor the litigants. (Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013)221 Cal.App.4th 975, 984–985; Mansell v. Board ofAdministration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 546 [itis not the court's function to serve as the appellant'sbackup counsel].)” (Allen, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th atp. 52.)An appellant's extensive citation to nonexistent legalauthority justifies striking appellant's opening brief,dismissing the appeal, and/or imposing sanctions,including an award of attorney fees and costs torespondents and an award of sanctions payable to theclerk of the court, for a frivolous appeal. (Noland v.Land of the Free, L.P. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 426, 431[electing to impose $10,000 sanction on appellant'scounsel and require service of opinion on client andState Bar]; see, e.g., In re Marriage of Deal (2022) 80Cal.App.5th 71, 77–81 [dismissing frivolous appeal];Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 179, 182[appellate courts have inherent power to dismiss appealbrought on frivolous grounds].)These rules apply to self-represented litigants as wellas attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th1229, 1246–1247; County of Sacramento v. Singh,supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at p. 861.)Kuigoua has not met his burden on appeal. The legalarguments in his appellate briefs are not coherent.Many of the arguments are presented in bulletpoints, incomplete sentences, or unintelligible charts.Moreover, Kuigoua repeatedly cites to legal authoritythat does not mention the proposition stated, standsfor an opposite proposition, or does not exist at all.
Kuigoua v. Park, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr. (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4For example, Kuigoua's opening brief cites “Laddv. Dart Equipment Corp. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d1088, 1097–1098,” for the proposition that Californiacourts have consistently held that attorneys can beliable for malpractice in administrative proceedings.Kuigoua cites the Ladd case four separate placesin his opening brief. Our review shows that inLadd, the appellate court considered whether the trialcourt abused its discretion by dismissing a complaintfor failure to serve process. (Id. at p. 1091.) Theopinion does not mention administrative proceedingsor legal malpractice at all. In the respondents’ brief,respondents catalogued several examples of irrelevantor nonexistent citations to legal authority in Kuigoua'sopening brief, including references to the Ladd case.In his reply, however, Kuigoua continues to insist thatthe Ladd case governs attorney-client relationships,fiduciary duties, and malpractice liability in California.*4 As another example, Kuigoua's opening briefstates the case of Peterson, supra, did not addressattorney malpractice and involved “a non-attorneyunion representative handling an informal grievance.”This is incorrect. The Peterson court expresslyaddressed attorney malpractice claims and found amalpractice claim cannot be maintained against anattorney employed or retained by the union to representa member in a labor grievance, whether the attorneyis in-house staff or outside counsel for the union.(Peterson, supra, at pp. 1257–1258.)Kuigoua compounds the issue by stating in his openingbrief that no California case has adopted reasoningimmunizing a licensed attorney employed by a unionfrom malpractice claims. This is also incorrect. InAragon, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at pp. 458–464, theappellate court expressly adopted and extended theanalysis of Peterson. The respondents explained andrelied on the Aragon case in their demurrer in the trialcourt and in their respondents’ brief on appeal, butKuigoua has omitted any discussion of Aragon fromhis briefs on appeal.This is a small sample of the deceptive, incorrect,or irrelevant legal citations in Kuigoua's briefs. Asthe respondents have pointed out, Kuigoua's openingbrief relies on multiple citations to three cases thatare supposedly central to his contentions, but do notexist. After the respondents pointed out false citations,Kuigoua's reply brief stated that he will no longerrely on two cases that “cannot be verified throughpublicly accessible court records[,]” but insisted thatformatting inconsistencies or citation errors do notaffect the controlling authorities supporting reversal.Kuigoua has failed to acknowledge the governingcase law applicable to unions and attorneys employedby unions to make a nonfrivolous argument forthe modification or reversal of existing law. Afterciting nonexistent cases in opposition to the demurrerin the trial court, which were brought to hisattention, he cited nonexistent cases again in hisbriefs on appeal. The respondents have painstakinglycatalogued deficiencies in the cases cited in Kuigoua'sbriefs, wasting the respondents’ resources, and thiscourt has verified respondents’ concerns throughindependent research and review, wasting furtherresources. Kuigoua's contentions are contrary to well-established law (as we have discussed above); ratherhe attempts to support his contentions by citation tocases that do not stand for the proposition cited or arenonexistent. Accordingly, his appeal is frivolous, andtherefore, dismissal is appropriate.DISPOSITIONThe appeal is dismissed. Respondents Carolyn YoungPark and Service Employees’ International Union,Local 1000, are awarded their costs on appeal.WE CONCUR:KIM (D.), J.KUMAR, J.*All CitationsNot Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2025 WL 3139621Footnotes
Kuigoua v. Park, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr. (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5*Retired judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section6 of the California Constitution.1Kuigoua's motion for judicial notice, filed with this appellate court on July 30, 2025, is denied. Kuigoua soughtjudicial notice of a legal citation in a footnote of an administrative decision issued by the PERB in an unrelatedcase. The administrative decision is not relevant to the issues on appeal, and the citation to legal authorityis redundant and inappropriate.End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access