Lancaster v. Law Offices of Isabel Hernandez Rodriguez CA2/3

Filed 6/22/15 Lancaster v. Law Offices of Isabel Hernandez Rodriguez CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

WALTER LANCASTER, B256990

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC508367) v.

LAW OFFICES OF ISABEL HERNANDEZ RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Abraham Khan, Judge. Modified and affirmed. Walter Lancaster, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________

Plaintiff and appellant Walter Lancaster (Lancaster), in propria persona, appeals a default judgment which awarded him $25,000 in damages against Isabel Hernandez Rodriguez (Rodriguez) and Law Offices of Isabel Hernandez Rodriguez (the Rodriguez firm) following a default proveup. Lancaster contends the trial court erred in awarding him only $25,000 for the emotional distress he suffered as a consequence of being arrested and jailed due to attorney malpractice, and further erred in denying him any award of punitive damages. On the record presented, we perceive no error in the amount of the damage award. However, the judgment must be modified to delete Rodriguez, the individual, as a party to the default judgment. (See § 3 of Discussion, post.) As modified, the judgment is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 9, 2013, Lancaster filed suit against the Rodriguez firm, alleging causes of action for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and fraud. The gravamen of the action is that attorney Rodriguez failed to appear at a restitution hearing on May 9, 2012, which led to the issuance of a bench warrant, Lancaster’s re-arrest, and his confinement in the county jail for six days. No answer was filed below (and no respondent’s brief has been filed on appeal). Lancaster served and filed a statement of damages seeking $40,000 in general damages and $120,000 in punitive damages. On November 4, 2013, the trial court entered the Rodriguez firm’s default, in accordance with Lancaster’s request for entry of default. On December 18, 2013, Lancaster submitted a default proveup package, consisting of his declaration and list of exhibits. The matter proceeded on written declaration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 585, subdivision (d). On January 13, 2014, the trial court issued a written ruling indicating that it had reviewed the papers submitted in support of the default proveup, and that Lancaster would be awarded $25,000 in general damages for the emotional distress he suffered by