Tanasescu v. Simjee CA4/3

Filed 8/1/23 Tanasescu v. Simjee 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SEMIRAMIS TANASESCU,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G061347

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01100016)

SOHAIL IDRIES SIMJEE et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Walter P. Schwarm, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. Semiramis Tanasescu, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Peterson, Bradford, Burkwitz, Gregorio, Burkwitz & Su, Thomas R. Bradford, Sherry M. Gregorio, and Irene A. Yousefi for Defendants and Respondents.

Semiramis Tanasescu appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her claims 1 without leave to amend because she was a minor without legal representation. During the pendency of her appeal, Tanasescu reached the age of majority, and she is therefore entitled to amend her complaint and proceed in court without representation. Accordingly, we reverse and remand. FACTS In 2019, Tanasescu, then a minor, filed this action in propria persona, together with her father (Father) against respondents—dentist Sohail Simjee, his dental clinic, and dental assistant Jolene Voight. They alleged, inter alia, that Tanasescu had suffered injuries due to respondents’ neglect in providing her dental care. The trial court appointed Father, who was not an attorney, as guardian ad litem for Tanasescu and directed him to attorney referral services because, as a minor, Tanasescu was required to have legal representation to proceed with her suit. (Weil et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶ 2:83, P. 2-39 [minors lack capacity to sue in their own names and must conduct litigation through guardian or guardian ad litem]; J.W. v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 958, 967 (J.W.) [nonattorney guardian ad litem may not represent minor in court; “‘The necessity of employment of an attorney by a guardian ad litem who is not himself a lawyer is obvious’”].) Respondents demurred to the complaint and later to a first amended complaint. As relevant here, they demurred to Tanasescu’s claims on the ground that she lacked legal representation. The trial court sustained both demurrers as to Tanasescu. Father then filed the operative, second amended complaint, asserting several causes of