Roth v. Glickman CA2/8

Filed 1/13/15 Roth v. Glickman CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

STEVEN ROTH, B253835

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC460426) v.

STEVEN C. GLICKMAN et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Soussan G. Bruguera, Judge. Affirmed.

Morris Polich & Purdy, Jens B. Koepke and J. Scott Miller for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Hollins & Levy, Byron S. Hollins, Laura M. Levy and Adam L. Robinson for Defendants and Respondents.

******

Plaintiff Steven Roth filed this action for legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation against Steven C. Glickman and Glickman & Glickman (collectively, Glickman). Roth appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to set aside the dismissal of the action. On appeal, he argues he committed a mistake of fact justifying relief from the dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.1 We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1. Allegations of Original Complaint Roth filed this action against Glickman in April 2011 for legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation. His complaint alleged as follows. In October 2003, Joseph Fryzer filed an action against Roth and Roth’s former employer, New York Life Insurance Company (Fryzer action). Fryzer alleged he had lost $2.7 million in reliance on false advice he received from Roth about an investment. Roth obtained a jury verdict in his favor in the Fryzer action. After the verdict, in September 2007, Roth filed a malicious prosecution action against Fryzer and his attorneys, among others, for bringing the Fryzer action. Roth’s first counsel in the malicious prosecution action, Steven Klugman, advised him that he had a strong case. Roth met with Glickman two days after Klugman filed the complaint in the malicious prosecution action to discuss Glickman’s associating into the case. At that meeting, Roth informed Glickman of Klugman’s assessment of the case, and Glickman fully concurred with it. Glickman made further representations about his extensive experience with malicious prosecution cases and his opinion of the strength of Roth’s case. At no point did Glickman advise Roth that the malicious prosecution action would be subject to section 425.16, which permitted the dismissal of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (the anti-SLAPP statute). Nor did Glickman advise Roth that he would be liable for attorney fees and costs, if the court granted any anti-SLAPP motion.