Safarian v. Cienfuegos CA2/2

Filed 10/30/13 Safarian v. Cienfuegos CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

BABKAN SAFARIAN, B244443

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC465556) v.

DAVID P. CIENFUEGOS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.

California Lawyers Group, Inc., Mitra Chegini, David J. Castenholz for Plaintiff and Appellant.

David P. Cienfuegos, in pro. per., and for Defendants and Respondents.

___________________________________________________

Plaintiff sued his former attorney for professional negligence. He then dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice and filed another action. Because the statute of limitations had run on professional negligence claims, plaintiff attempted to plead fraud. The trial court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer to plaintiff’s first amended complaint, finding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead fraud. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Allegations Plaintiff Babkan Safarian retained defendant David P. Cienfuegos and his firm, defendant Cienfuegos Co., Attorneys at Law, in November 2005, to provide legal assistance in connection with an action involving a condominium Safarian owned in Encino.1 Before and during Safarian’s ownership of the property, the governing homeowners association had obtained judgments against prior owners of the condominium. Cienfuegos represented to Safarian that his firm could handle the representation of Safarian’s matter and successfully conclude it. In an August 2008 e- mail to plaintiff, Cienfuegos stated: “I do not want to waste a lot of time on this case and want to win it as soon as possible. How? Taking the HOA deposition and getting to admit what their CC&R states. Then I plan to file a motion for summary judgment and have judgment entered in our favor. Case closed. With any luck, it can be over in 4 months.” In November 2008, Cienfuegos represented to Safarian that executing a settlement agreement and a stipulated judgment prepared by the homeowners association would close the case and that Safarian would not be subject to any adverse consequences. Relying on Cienfuegos’s representations, Safarian executed the settlement agreement and stipulated judgment. He eventually discovered, however, that the executed documents exposed him to liability for a debt that predated his ownership of the condominium.