Aryeh v. Law Offices of Joseph Daneshrad CA2/2

Filed 1/6/14 Aryeh v. Law Offices of Joseph Daneshrad CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JAMSHID ARYEH, B248014

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC476302) v.

LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH DANESHRAD,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert L. Hess, Judge. Affirmed.

Jamshid Aryeh, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Daneshrad Law Firm, Lyle River for Defendant and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

Plaintiff and appellant Jamshid Aryeh sued the Law Offices of Joseph Daneshrad (Daneshrad) for legal malpractice. Aryeh appeals after the trial court sustained a demurrer to Aryeh’s seconded amended complaint without leave to amend. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Daneshrad represented Aryeh in a marital dissolution action for about two years, substituting out of the case in January 2011.1 Aryeh, acting in propria persona, sued Daneshrad for legal malpractice on January 5, 2012. Daneshrad filed a demurrer to Aryeh’s complaint, but before hearing on the demurrer was held, Aryeh filed a first amended complaint. A demurrer to the first amended complaint was sustained on September 25, 2012. Based upon representations to the trial court that he had retained counsel, Aryeh was given 10 days to amend his complaint. On October 4, 2012, Aryeh filed his second amended complaint, still acting in propria persona. Daneshrad filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint on October 18, 2012, setting a hearing date of November 15, 2012. Soon after, Aryeh actually retained counsel, Shahrokh Mokhtarzadeh, who substituted into the case on October 25, 2012. No opposition was filed to the pending demurrer, however. Mokhtarzadeh appeared at the demurrer hearing and conceded the demurrer was meritorious. At the hearing, he presented an ex parte application seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, and a proposed third amended complaint was submitted. The trial court examined the proposed third amended complaint, found that it “was so facially deficient that there could be no point to allowing it to be filed,” and denied the ex parte application. It then sustained the demurrer to the second amended complaint and denied leave to amend. On November 26, 2012, Mokhtarzadeh filed a notice of motion seeking reconsideration of the November 15, 2012 ruling and for leave to file a third amended complaint. No memorandum of points and authorities or other documents accompanied