Leonard, Dicker & Schreiber v. Montero CA2/5

Filed 11/25/20 Leonard, Dicker & Schreiber v. Montero CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

LEONARD, DICKER & B298011 SCHREIBER LLP, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BC505671) v.

GUILLERMO MONTERO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert S. Draper, Judge. Affirmed. Guillermo Montero, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Leonard, Dicker & Schreiber, Kevin S. Dicker, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Plaintiff and respondent Leonard, Dicker & Schreiber LLP (plaintiff) sued defendant and appellant Guillermo Montero (defendant) in 2013 to recover unpaid legal fees. At the time, defendant’s wife, Maria Montero (Maria) was in the midst of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. After the bankruptcy court closed Maria’s bankruptcy case, the trial court in this case held a bench trial in February 2019 (there were several prior continuances to accommodate a stay entered in the bankruptcy proceedings) and ultimately entered a judgment for defendant. We are asked to consider—on the sparse record presented on appeal, which includes no reporter’s transcript of any hearings held in this matter, no reporter’s transcript of the trial proceedings, and no exhibits admitted in evidence during trial— whether the judgment should be reversed because the issues tried were barred by res judicata or violated the terms of the bankruptcy court’s stay.

I. BACKGROUND Maria filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in October 2009. The Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming Maria’s fifth amended plan of reorganization (the Reorganization Plan) in November 2012. A “miscellaneous” provision of the Reorganization Plan stated Maria would request discharge and proceed to request entry of a final decree in less than five years. It further recited that all liens characterized as unsecured would be extinguished on confirmation of the plan. Plaintiff’s claim was listed as a disputed claim on Maria’s schedule of unsecured non- priority claims. It was identified as a disputed community claim with defendant.