Deuschel v. Michelman & Robinson CA2/8

Filed 10/6/14 Deuschel v. Michelman & Robinson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

MICHAEL DEUSCHEL, B245083

Plaintiff and Appellant (Los Angeles County , Super. Ct. No. BC471655)

v.

MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Richard Rico, Judge. Reversed.

Michael Deuschel, in pro per. for Appellant.

Michelman & Robinson, Marc R. Jacobs and Robin James for Respondents.

__________________________

Michael Deuschel appeals from the trial court’s judgment sustaining the demurrer by his former attorneys (Michelman & Robinson, LLP; Marc Jacobs; Kira Sue Masteller; and, Ryan Boyd) to his complaint against them for legal malpractice. The court sustained the demurrer because it concluded Deuschel’s complaint was untimely. Because the court misapplied the continuing representation doctrine, we reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Because this appeal is from a demurrer, we rely on the allegations of appellant’s complaint without judging their veracity. In 2007, appellant Michael Deuschel lent $50,000 to Edward and Donna Vodicka and their company; we refer collectively to the Vodickas and their company, who are not parties to this appeal, as the Vodickas. When the Vodickas defaulted on the loan and damaged personal property that appellant had stored with them, appellant hired respondent law firm Michelman & Robinson, LLP, to sue the Vodickas for damages. In November 2008, Michelman & Robinson, LLP, filed a complaint against the Vodickas. The complaint alleged the Vodickas had obtained the loan from appellant through fraud. The Vodickas did not answer appellant’s complaint, and the court entered their default. In August 2010, respondent Michelman & Robinson filed pleadings with the court to prove-up appellant’s damages. The pleadings were defective, however, in several ways, the particulars of which are not important here other than they did not seek recovery of the entire amount of almost $400,000 in damages to which appellant believed he was entitled from the Vodickas’ fraud. Relying on respondents’ deficient pleadings, the court entered judgment for appellant on August 23, 2010, of only $78,818, consisting of $50,000 for the unpaid loan, $13,300 for conversion of his property, and the rest in costs and statutory attorney’s fees. One day later on August 24, 2010, respondent attorney Marc Jacobs of Michelman & Robinson sent an email to appellant informing him of the judgment entered the previous day. Jacobs wrote to appellant: “We are pleased to report that the Court entered a Judgment in your favor on 8/23/10. A copy of this Judgment is attached. We were