Lancaster v. Law Officers of Choe CA2/4

Filed 9/3/14 Lancaster v. Law Officers of Choe CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

WALTER LANCASTER, B242069

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC448878) v.

LAW OFFICES OF GENE W. CHOE,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert O’Brien, Judge. Affirmed. Walter Lancaster, in propria persona, for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Walter Lancaster appeals from a judgment dismissing his legal malpractice action for failure to comply with an order to produce documents and to designate any witnesses for trial or provide the court with complete transcripts of the underlying trial. We find no abuse of discretion, and thus we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, in propria persona, filed this legal malpractice action against his former attorney, the Law Offices of Gene W. Choe, on November 4, 2010.1 The operative first amended complaint, filed May 13, 2011, alleges that defendant’s representation of plaintiff in a police brutality case against the City of Inglewood fell below the standard of care in that defendant “failed to follow any leads or pursue any tangible evidence that would assist in this case,” was “ill prepar[ed]” for trial, “did not enter or request the video from the police showing the incident on tape,” “failed to enter the Plaintiff’s clothing worn that night showing the burn marks from the taser,” and “failed to reenact the events so that the Court could get an idea of the circumstances and the wrongful acts.” On November 28, 2011, defendant made a motion to compel plaintiff to provide further answers to interrogatories and for production of documents. The trial court granted the motion on March 2, 2012, ordering plaintiff to provide verified responses to defendant’s discovery and produce responsive documents by March 12, 2012. Trial was scheduled for March 26, 2012. On March 21, 2012, plaintiff filed an exhibit list, but he apparently never filed a witness list. He posted jury fees on March 23, 2012. Defendant filed a motion in limine for issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions for plaintiff’s failure to serve verified responses to the document requests and to produce documents in compliance with the court’s order, to be heard on the first day of trial. On March 26, the court held the final status conference. The minute order of the hearing says: “Plaintiff has not listed any witnesses and indicates he needs more time to