Lee v. Stearn CA2/4

Filed 8/2/13 Lee v. Stearn CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

KYUNG RYUN LEE, B244790

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC460556) v.

MARTIN STEARN et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Deirdre Hill, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Andrew Kim and Andrew Kim for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.

__________________________________

Kyung Ryun Lee appeals from a judgment against her after a court trial of her legal malpractice action against Martin Stearn and others. She claims the trial court erred in denying her a continuance for proper preparation for trial, and that it erred in finding no liability based on her failure to produce an expert witness at trial. We find no error and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY 1 We glean our factual statement from the limited record provided on appeal. Ms. Lee retained attorney Stearn to represent her in a dental malpractice case against Sang Don Choi. She told Stearn she suffered injury during dental treatment by Dr. Choi in December 2007. Stearn filed an action against Dr. Choi on her behalf in Los Angeles Superior Court. In February 2010, Dr. Choi moved for summary judgment. According to Stearn, he attempted to contact all the healthcare workers who treated Ms. Lee for her alleged injuries in the underlying case, but none was willing to act as an expert witness or sign a declaration to oppose the summary judgment motion. Stearn did not file opposition to the motion, and did not appear at the hearing on the motion. Summary judgment was granted and the dental malpractice action was dismissed. In April 2011, Ms. Lee, in propria persona (pro. per.), brought this legal malpractice action against Stearn and others. On January 30, 2012, defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was no expert willing to provide a declaration to oppose the motion for summary judgment in the underlying dental malpractice case. Ms. Lee, still in pro. per., filed opposition. In her declaration, she stated that she had attempted to obtain declarations of various experts, but some had moved away and the University of Southern California School of Dentistry would not help her, which she believed was a matter of policy. She visited Daniel Chang’s clinic to ask him to become her expert witness. He refused to sign the declaration, but “I think if this Court issue a