Liu v. Shapero CA1/5

Filed 10/18/23 Liu v. Shapero CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

SALLY LIU, A165080 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (City and County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC- SARAH SHAPERO, 19-576168) Defendant and Respondent.

In this legal malpractice action, Sally Liu (Plaintiff)1 appeals from the trial court’s judgment following its order granting summary judgment to defendant Sarah Shapero (Attorney). We affirm. BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed. In 2008, Plaintiff financed the purchase of a three-unit commercial real estate property with a ten year loan from East West Bank (the Bank). The terms of the loan required Plaintiff to make monthly installment payments during the life of the loan, plus a balloon payment of more than $400,000 in February 2018.

1 Plaintiff was represented by counsel in the trial court but appears in

propria persona on appeal.

1

In January 2018, the Bank issued a notice of default claiming Plaintiff failed to make monthly installment payments due in December 2017 and January 2018. In February, Plaintiff failed to pay the balloon payment when it came due. In April, the Bank noticed a foreclosure sale for May 17. On May 7—ten days before the scheduled foreclosure sale—Plaintiff retained Attorney.2 On May 8, Attorney filed a lawsuit against the Bank for wrongful foreclosure. On May 14, Attorney filed an application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the foreclosure sale. The Bank opposed the application and, on May 15, the trial court denied it, finding Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof and was in default. Also on May 15, Plaintiff was conditionally preapproved for a loan of $650,000. At her deposition, Plaintiff testified she did not know whether the conditions for final approval of the loan were ever met. On May 16, following negotiations with Attorney, the Bank offered a two-week postponement of the foreclosure sale in exchange for $23,000 and dismissal with prejudice of the wrongful foreclosure action. Plaintiff rejected the offer. Instead, on May 16, Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy petition. On May 31, Plaintiff’s bankruptcy filing was dismissed. The Bank scheduled a new foreclosure sale for June 18. On June 15, Plaintiff filed a second bankruptcy petition. On July 2, the second petition was dismissed. Attorney was aware of the bankruptcy filings, but did not advise Plaintiff on them. On July 5, the property was sold at auction to a third party.