People v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing CA2/8

── People v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing CA2/8 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 P. v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF B342847 CALIFORNIA EX REL. HEATH & YUEN, APC, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV36715) Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SILVER BIRD AUTO LEASING, LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kerry Bensinger, Judge. Affirmed. Heath & Yuen, Stephen B. Heath, Steven W. Yuen, and Joshua G. Wong, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Worthington Law, Brian P. Worthington, for Defendants and Respondents. __________________________  Appellant Heath & Yuen, APC defended a van driver and related parties in an auto collision suit. The law firm then brought this action against those who pressed the auto collision suit as litigants and lawyers, namely respondents Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, the X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. According to the law firm, respondents violated the Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) by defrauding its clients’ insurers. (Ins. Code, § 1871 et seq.) IFPA “allows qui tam plaintiffs to file lawsuits on the government’s behalf and seek monetary penalties against perpetrators of insurance fraud.” (People ex rel. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Rubin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 753, 760–761; Ins. Code, § 1871.7, subd. (e).) The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), which ultimately paid to settle the underlying auto collision suit on behalf of the driver and his insolvent insurance company, did not “condone or authorize” this IFPA action and disclaims being defrauded. Heath & Yuen nevertheless persisted. The trial court granted summary judgment to respondents because their alleged misrepresentations were immaterial. We affirm. BACKGROUND 1. Underlying Litigation The underlying suit arose from a December 2017 slow- speed collision in Beverly Hills between a McLaren luxury sports car, driven by Marchino, and a tour van. As the McLaren attempted a U-turn, the two vehicles collided. Silver Bird, as owner of the McLaren, filed a complaint in early 2018 for negligence against the tour company, its owner, and the van’s driver. The complaint sought damages for the McLaren’s repair, loss of use, and diminution in value. According to the complaint, Marchino had made “a legal turn” prior to the collision. 2 Discovery purportedly revealed several things about the collision: (1) Marchino’s U-turn occurred, as can be seen in a post-collision photograph, over a certain configuration of double yellow lines, (2) the brightly colored McLaren may have been stationary at impact, and (3) the tour van driver may have been distracted immediately before the collision. Eagan Avenatti LLP represented Silver Bird when it first filed this suit. Two-and-a-half years later, X-Law and Marchino took over Silver Bird’s representation. Defendants’ insurer, Gateway, retained Heath & Yuen to represent the defendants. After Gateway became insolvent, CIGA took over the defense. Ultimately, the case settled in early 2021 with a $25,000 payment to Silver Bird. 2. The IFPA Complaint After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a verified complaint against respondents —