Davidson v. Hopps CA2/6

Filed 11/19/21 Davidson v. Hopps CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

JOANNE SNYDER DAVIDSON, 2d Civ. No. B309427 (Super. Ct. No. 17CV02310) Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and (Santa Barbara County) Respondent,

v.

ROBERT A. HOPPS,

Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.

Robert A. Hopps appeals a judgment entered by default in favor of Joanne Snyder Davidson. We affirm. This appeal concerns a legal malpractice action against Hopps asserting that he committed professional negligence during representation of Davidson in a lawsuit against her former husband, Barry Snyder. Following procedural wrangling in the present action between Hopps and Davidson, Hopps did not appear at trial. The trial court then heard testimony from Davidson and entered a default judgment for $71,524, plus costs.

Hopps now appeals the judgment and, in part, argues that he did not receive sufficient notice of trial. We reject this and other arguments. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2011, Davidson sought legal representation from Hopps to file a lawsuit against Snyder regarding his claimed promises to pay college expenses for their two sons. In 2012, Davidson filed an action against Snyder (“underlying action”) for breach of contract. Davidson repeatedly failed to comply with discovery requests and orders, however, and the trial court dismissed her lawsuit as a sanction. Davidson appealed. In an unpublished opinion, we concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the underlying action without first imposing less severe sanctions. (Snyder v. Snyder (Aug. 23, 2016, B264773).) We reversed the judgment. Upon remand, Davidson voluntarily dismissed her action as barred by the statute of limitations. She later testified that the action should have been timely filed “shortly after [she] hired Mr. Hopps.” On May 26, 2017, Davidson filed this legal malpractice action against Hopps. Among other things, she alleged that Hopps failed to inform her regarding discovery requests, discovery disputes, and trial court discovery orders. Hopps answered Davidson’s unverified complaint with a general denial, and also filed a cross-complaint for $7,614 in unpaid legal fees. The cross-complaint was purportedly verified, but Davidson asserted the verification was defective. She filed a non-verified answer to the cross-complaint. Hopps then sought entry of a default judgment on the cross-complaint. Following a hearing, the trial court determined