Soderstrom v. Chen CA4/3

Filed 4/19/13 Soderstrom v. Chen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

RANDY LEE SODERSTROM,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G047048

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2008-00106810)

RAY CHEN et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andrew P. Banks, Judge. Affirmed. Randy Lee Soderstrom, in propria persona, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Beam, Brobeck, West, Borges & Rosa, David J. Brobeck, Stephen J. Martino, and Edward J. Reid for Defendants and Respondents. * * *

Plaintiff Randy Lee Soderstrom (a former criminal defendant) appeals from a judgment of dismissal of his legal malpractice action after the court set aside a stay and then sustained, without leave to amend, the demurrer of defendants Ray Chen (his former criminal defense lawyer), Marri Derby, and the County of Orange (sued as the Orange County Alternate Defender) on grounds the action was barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff contends he was entitled under Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1194, 1199 (Coscia) to a stay of proceedings on his malpractice action while he sought exoneration through postconviction relief. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

1 FACTS

In November 2004, plaintiff was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter and other crimes. The court sentenced him to 12 years in prison. On December 20, 2005, plaintiff petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging, inter alia, multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel by the County of Orange and alternate public defender Ray Chen (who served as plaintiff‟s trial counsel in the criminal case). In June 2007, we denied plaintiff‟s habeas corpus petition and also affirmed the judgment on appeal. Our Supreme Court subsequently denied plaintiff‟s petition for review. Plaintiff then filed a habeas corpus petition with the federal district court. On May 15, 2008, plaintiff filed his legal malpractice complaint against defendants. On July 2, 2008, defendants demurred and moved to strike the complaint.