Universal Interactive v. Greenberg Traurig CA4/3

Filed 6/1/16 Universal Interactive v. Greenberg Traurig 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

UNIVERSAL INTERACTIVE, LLC, et al., G050338 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00452967) v. OPINION GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert D. Monarch, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Winthrop Law Group and Reid A. Winthrop for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Steptoe & Johnson, Michael P. McNamara, Bennet Evan Cooper, Dylan Ruga and David H. Kwasniewski; Jenner & Block and Michael P. McNamara for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

Plaintiffs Universal Interactive, LLC, Joel B. Shamitoff and Shamitoff Industries, Inc. (Plaintiffs) appeal from a judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Defendant). Plaintiffs argue the court erred in granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss for delay in prosecution. We disagree and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 24, 2011 Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint against Defendant and others, including Sedgwick, Detert Moran & Arnold, LLP (Sedgwick), alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, all arising out of their representation of Plaintiffs in two underlying lawsuits. For many months after the complaint was filed, Plaintiffs apparently made no effort to serve any of the defendants. On April 7, the court relieved Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, James F. Rumm of Douglas, Lopez & Rumm. At the first case management conference (CMC) on September 14, the court noted Plaintiffs were then in propria persona and had failed to appear. The court set an order to show cause regarding dismissal for failure to proceed on October 18. On October 18, Shaun M. Murphy of Douglas, Lopez & Rumm appeared for Plaintiffs. The court ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel to come up with a plan to proceed, and set another CMC for December 20. At the CMC on December 20, Shaun M. Murphy, then of Slovak, Baron & Empey, appeared for Plaintiffs. The court noted Plaintiffs still needed to serve defendants, and set another CMC on April 17, 2012. At the CMC on April 17, Michael Leb of Douglas, Lopez & Rumm appeared for Plaintiffs. The court ordered Plaintiffs to serve all defendants by July 31. Plaintiffs served Sedgwick on July 27. At a CMC on July 31, Dennis D. Resh of David H. Pierce & Associates appeared for Plaintiffs. The court continued the CMC to November 21, in order to allow Plaintiffs’ counsel more time to serve the remaining defendants.