Tong v. Hakim CA2/2

Filed 2/18/14 Tong v. Hakim CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

TU MY TONG, B237890

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC406179) v.

ALFRED HAKIM,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ralph W. Dau, Judge. Affirmed.

To My Tong, in propria persona, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Alfred Hakim, in propria persona, for Defendant and Respondent.

******

Tu My Tong (appellant), in propria persona, appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted a nonsuit in favor of respondent, Alfred Hakim (respondent), on a legal malpractice complaint. Appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion in denying her a one-day continuance to present expert witness testimony on the legal malpractice claim. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The record on appeal is sparse and incomplete.1 The following is gleaned from appellant’s opening brief on appeal and the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts. On January 26, 2009, appellant sued respondent for malpractice in handling a fee dispute between her and her former attorney Fred Rucker (Rucker). The fee dispute, which was submitted to mandatory arbitration, resulted in a $35,000 award in Rucker’s favor. On September 9, 2011, appellant, who was then represented by counsel, requested that the trial court continue the trial date to September 23, 2011. On September 23, 2011, appellant’s counsel moved to withdraw from the case. The trial court granted the motion. Apparently, after appellant became violent, the trial court had the bailiff remove appellant from the courtroom. A jury trial of the malpractice claim began on November 28, 2011. After appellant made an opening statement, she testified in a narrative form concerning her theories of malpractice. Appellant testified that Rucker had overcharged her for several legal matters. According to appellant, she paid Rucker a $15,000 retainer. Rucker subsequently represented appellant in settling a legal dispute with a party named William Brownstein for $25,000. Rucker took the entire $25,000 settlement as part of his fees. He then claimed he was owed additional fees. Those fees were the subject of the mandatory arbitration proceeding. Appellant hired respondent to represent her in the attorney fee dispute with Rucker. Appellant told respondent that she wanted a jury trial; however, he advised her