 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Crumb v. McClain-Hill11/26/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Ealise Crumb challenges the judgment entered in her legal malpractice action on the respondents' motion for summary judgment. She argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying her request for a continuance to conduct further discovery in opposition to the motion, and in denying her discovery motions. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's order denying her an opportunity for further discovery. We also conclude the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the moving parties failed to negate an element as to all of appellant's causes of action except the second and seventh. The order denying appellant's motion to disqualify the trial court judge is not appealable, and we therefore do not reach the merits of her arguments on that issue.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
This is a legal malpractice action. The charging pleading is the second amended complaint. In April 1995, appellant hired defendant James A. Schropp, at that time a sole practitioner, to represent her in a racial discrimination action against her former employer, the law firm Haight, Brown & Bonesteel (Haight, Brown). Two months later, she retained Schropp to represent her in a personal injury action against the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). In December 1995, Schropp formed a partnership with defendants Cynthia McClain-Hill, Craig Cornwell, and Ruth Chao, entitled McClain-Hill, Cornwell, Chao & Schropp (McClain-Hill firm). Appellant's case was transferred to the McClain-Hill firm.
Appellant's race discrimination case went to trial in October 1996. It resulted in non-suit against her. Haight, Brown as prevailing party, filed a cost bill which included a claim for costs and attorney's fees in excess of $150,000. In January 1997, the McClain-Hill firm filed a notice of appeal on behalf of appellant. According to the allegations of the complaint, the McClain-Hill firm obtained several extensions of the deadline to file the opening brief in the appeal, all unbeknownst to appellant. While an extension was in effect, Schropp informed appellant that the McClain-Hill firm would dissolve in August 1997. He told her that her brief would not be impacted, and that it already was complete except for minor changes. Despite appellant's repeated requests, she was never given a copy of the opening brief.
In November 1997, appellant telephoned the Court of Appeal and learned that her appeal had been dismissed in October 1997 because the opening brief had not been filed. Schropp's motions for relief from default and motion for stay of issuance of remittitur were denied by our court.
In February 1998, appellant discovered that the McClain-Hill firm had not paid medical liens on her personal injury action against MTA. That lawsuit had been settled through mediation for $95,000. Appellant alleged that respondents misappropriated funds from the settlement of the personal injury action, and that lien holders were not fully paid.
Appellant sued the McClain-Hill firm, Cynthia McClain-Hill, Craig McClain-Hill, Ruth Chao, James Schropp, the Law Offices of James A. Schropp, and an associate of the firm, Nichelle Frelix. Acting in propria persona, she alleged causes of action for legal malpractice, breach of contract, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, misappropriation and
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|