Tsang v. Roberts CA4/3

Filed 4/29/16 Tsang v. Roberts CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SUSIE TSANG,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G050359

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00586613)

KENNETH A. ROBERTS, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregory H. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Susie Tsang, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Hollins & Levy, Byron S. Hollins, Laura M. Levy, and Adam L. Robinson for Defendant and Respondent.

* * *

Plaintiff Susie Tsang appeals from the court’s order denying her Code of Civil Procedure section 473 motion to set aside the dismissal of her action against, and 1 her settlement agreement with, her former attorney, defendant Kenneth A. Roberts. We affirm the court’s order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

According to the parties’ appellate briefs, defendant represented plaintiff in a dental malpractice action, which she lost when summary judgment was entered against her. In July 2012, plaintiff sued defendant for professional negligence. At an October 2, 2013 hearing in the case, with plaintiff present and represented by Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr., the court ruled, inter alia, on defendant’s motions in limine Nos. 4 2 through 8. The court then stated that, in its opinion, “plaintiff has made a major error in [failing] to obtain a legal malpractice expert. . . . [¶] This case may well wind up with the granting of a nonsuit . . . .” At the court’s request, the attorneys for both parties met with the court in chambers. Back on the record, Franceschi stated plaintiff had agreed “to accept the defense 998 offer in the amount of $20,000” in full settlement of the case. In response to the court’s detailed questioning, plaintiff stated she understood and agreed to the settlement and that she realized she was thereby giving up her constitutional right to a