Mazed v. Leech, Tishman, Fuscaldo & Lampl CA2/8

Filed 12/21/20 Mazed v. Leech, Tishman, Fuscaldo & Lampl CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MOHAMMAD A. MAZED B297193

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC654452) v.

LEECH, TISHMAN, FUSCALDO & LAMPL, LLP, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joseph R. Kalin and Robert S. Draper, Judges. Affirmed. The David Epstein Law Firm and David G. Epstein for Plaintiff and Appellant. Nemecek & Cole, Jonathan B. Cole, Mark Schaeffer and Vikram Sohal for Defendants and Respondents. ____________________

Mohammad A. Mazed appeals the trial court’s rejection of his legal malpractice claim. Two fatal procedural problems infect his appeal. First, Mazed relies solely on an appellate argument he did not properly brief in the trial court. Second, Mazed’s appellate briefing is deficient. We therefore affirm. I Plaintiff and appellant Mohammad Mazed had a financial dispute with his former patent lawyer, respondent Ivan Posey. (We refer to Posey and his law firm, respondent Leech, Tishman, Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLP, collectively as Posey.) Posey asked Mazed to pay about $20,000 in legal fees. Mazed claimed he owed nothing and sued for a declaratory judgment saying so. Mazed’s complaint had nine counts. One was for legal malpractice. Mazed filed a first amended complaint. It is the operative pleading. This complaint alleged three areas of dispute. First, Mazed continued to seek a declaratory judgment he owed Posey nothing. Second, Mazed claimed Posey owed Mazed money for serving as Posey’s expert witness. Third, Mazed increased the number of his legal malpractice allegations to three: 1. Posey did not properly act upon a notice. 2. Posey made errors in materials Posey submitted to the patent office on Mazed’s behalf. 3. Posey injured Mazed through “diminution of foreign patent rights.” Posey responded with a counterclaim against Mazed, asserting Mazed did owe Posey money. Posey moved for summary judgment and adjudication. Mazed filed an 11-page brief in opposition, with voluminous attachments.