Schonbrun Desimone v. Benham CA2/5

Filed 9/12/14 Schonbrun Desimone et al. v. Benham CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

SCHONBRUN DESIMONE et al., B247328

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC454997) v.

ALICIA BENHAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Deirdre Hill, Judge. Affirmed. Alicia Benham, in Pro. Per., for Defendant and Appellant. Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, Vincent James DeSimone, Armen M. Tashjian and Michael D. Seplow, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Alicia Benham appeals from the trial court’s order denying her Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment in favor of her former attorneys, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman & Harrison, LLP (the “Law Firm”). She contends the court abused its discretion by denying her motion. We determine that the court acted well within its discretion in denying the motion, and so affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arose from Ms. Benham’s failure to pay legal fees to the Law Firm after it successfully represented her in an action against Walgreens and S&J Security Services. The first lawsuit, Benham v. Walgreens et al., LASC Case No. BC 323316, focused on Ms. Benham’s false arrest, negligence, and civil rights violations by security guards employed by S&J Security Services working as agents for Walgreens. The Law Firm obtained a $2.1 million jury verdict in Ms. Benham’s favor and was awarded attorney fees. The Law Firm also successfully represented Ms. Benham in the appeal of the verdict by S&J Security Services. According to its complaint, the Law Firm provided Ms. Benham with all funds she was entitled to and fully accounted for how her share of the settlement proceeds was determined. After Ms. Benham received all sums to which she was entitled, she refused to release to the Law Firm the remaining settlement proceeds in payment of the earned contingency fee, attorneys’ fees, and costs expressly provided by the terms of a fully executed retainer agreement. The Law Firm and Ms. Benham attempted to resolve the fee dispute for months. After multiple attempts to resolve the dispute failed, Mr. DeSimone wrote Ms. Benham a letter on November 10, 2010 stating, “I am writing in a final attempt to see if we can resolve our fee dispute without the necessity of our law firm’s taking legal actions against you to recover our earned legal fees and cost reimbursements.” On November 23, 2010, attorney Samuel Spira, Esq. contacted Mr. DeSimone and confirmed in writing that he was retained by Ms. Benham to handle the fee dispute and