Woods v. Law Offices of Shahrokh Mokhtarzadeh CA2/8

Filed 11/27/23 Woods v. Law Offices of Shahrokh Mokhtarzadeh CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ALFREDO WOODS, B318790

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC707662 v.

LAW OFFICES OF SHAHROKH MOKHTARZADEH, PLC et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Christopher K. Lui, Judge. Affirmed.

Alfredo Woods, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Michelman & Robinson and Steven S. Davis for Defendants and Respondents.

_____________________________

SUMMARY Plaintiff Alfredo Woods tells us in the introduction to his opening brief that he brought a claim for legal malpractice, and his appeal arises from the trial court’s grant of defendants’ motion for nonsuit and the court’s subsequent denial of his motion for a new trial. That is the last we hear about the motion for nonsuit or the rulings until page 23, where plaintiff describes defendants’ contentions, and on page 24, where plaintiff contends the grant of nonsuit was “a grave error that overlooked the overwhelming weight of evidence demonstrating intentional disloyalty, negligence, and deficient legal advice by [defendants].” Plaintiff does not engage with the legal principle underlying the court’s nonsuit ruling. Plaintiff was required to establish more than defendants’ malpractice. The issue in the case was not whether defendants were negligent; that element of plaintiff’s case was presumed in the motion for nonsuit. The issue was whether plaintiff proffered any evidence that in the absence of the alleged malpractice, plaintiff would have achieved a better result. The court concluded that, drawing all inferences in favor of plaintiff, “there’s simply no evidence . . . that has been offered that would prove [the] causation and damages element . . . .” We see no error in that conclusion. Moreover, while defendants have not raised the point, our review of plaintiff’s opening brief and appendix reveals that plaintiff has failed to comply with multiple rules of appellate procedure, a failure that justifies a finding he has forfeited any argument that the motion for nonsuit was erroneously granted. His statement of facts goes on for 20 pages, often with no citations to the record, and the citations that are included are to a string of exhibits, declarations and other documents, without telling us where in his 3,267-page