Garcia v. Uremovic CA5

Filed 9/30/13 Garcia v. Uremovic CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

GUADALUPE GOMEZ GARCIA et al., F064246 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. CV272037) v.

JOSEPH A. UREMOVIC, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Sidney P. Chapin, Judge. Connors & Associates and G. Patrick Connors III for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Clifford & Brown, Stephen T. Clifford, John R. Szewczyk and T. Mark Smith for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J. and Kane, J.

Appellants Guadalupe Gomez Garcia, Eduardo Z. Garcia and Garcia Family Farms, Inc., were sued by S&J Farms (S&J) for breach of contract. Respondent Joseph A. Uremovic was the attorney who represented S&J. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered in appellants‟ favor on November 4, 2008. On October 29, 2010, appellants filed the instant action against respondent and others alleging causes of action for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, arising out of the breach of contract action. The trial court sustained respondent‟s demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend on the ground that the action was barred by Code of Civil Procedure1 section 340.6. Under section 340.6, an action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission arising in the performance of professional services must be commenced within one year. Appellants contend the trial court erred in applying the section 340.6 statute of limitations applicable to attorneys. Rather, appellants argue, the trial court should have applied the two-year statute of limitations applicable to general tort actions, including malicious prosecution, under section 335.1. The trial court was correct. The more specific statute of limitations under section 340.6 applies to a malicious prosecution action against an attorney rather than the two- year statute of limitations that applies to malicious prosecution actions generally. (Vafi v. McCloskey (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 874, 880 (Vafi).) DISCUSSION In Stavropoulos v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 190 (Stavropoulos), the court held that malicious prosecution actions were subject to the general two-year statute of limitations under section 335.1 for “injury to … an individual caused by the wrongful