Stafford v. Mains & Clark CA2/8

Filed 5/26/16 Stafford v. Mains & Clark CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

LOUISE STAFFORD, B263490

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC502809) v.

MAINS & CLARK et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael L. Stern, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Edi M. O. Faal and Edi M.O. Faal for Plaintiff and Appellant. Klinedinst, Heather L. Rosing, Gregor A. Hensrude and Kyle T. Overs for Defendants and Respondents Mains & Clark and David M. Mains. Yee & Belilove, Steven R. Yee, Steve R. Belilove and Rosely George for Defendants and Respondents The Trial Law Offices of Bradley I. Kramer and Bradley Kramer. Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, Rinat B. Klier Erlich and Candace E. Kallberg for Defendants and Respondents Frazee Law Group and Roseann Frazee.

******

In this case involving alleged legal malpractice, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of three defendant attorneys. The court found no evidence the attorneys caused Louise Stafford to lose her underlying litigation. Causation is a required element of a legal malpractice claim. (Osornio v. Weingarten (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 304, 319.) On appeal, appellant Stafford argues that the trial court should have granted her request for an additional continuance of the hearing on summary judgment. We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying her requested additional continuance because Stafford failed to show that such continuance would have assisted her in obtaining facts essential to her opposition. Further, we find no evidence raising a triable issue of material fact supporting the inference that Stafford’s attorneys in the underlying litigation caused her to lose the underlying litigation. We affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURE This is a legal malpractice case against Stafford’s three prior attorneys—David Mains, Roseann Frazee, Bradley Kramer—and their law firms. The three attorneys represented Stafford in underlying litigation concerning an automobile collision. Mains represented Stafford first, but withdrew prior to trial because of difficulties in the attorney- client relationship. On November 3, 2011, Frazee became Stafford’s attorney. Kramer assisted Frazee with the underlying trial, which started November 5, 2012. 1. Current Lawsuit Stafford filed her complaint in the current litigation March 12, 2013. Her theory of legal malpractice was that her attorneys in the underlying litigation should have presented evidence that the automobile collision exacerbated her degenerative disc condition. According to her, they breached the standard of care by instead advancing the theory that the vehicle collision caused her degenerative disc condition. In the operative pleading, Stafford alleged that Attorney Mains failed to investigate damages. Stafford alleged that because of Attorney Frazee’s negligence she was unable to prove causation or damages at trial. According to Stafford, both Attorneys Frazee and Kramer failed to present evidence of causation during the underlying trial.