O'Neill v. Cara CA4/3

Filed 7/10/24 O’Neill v. Cara 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JULIE O’NEILL,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G062076

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01092091)

ANTHONY P. CARA et al., OPINION Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald L. Bauer, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Thaler Law and Jesse J. Thaler for Defendants and Appellants. The Samini Firm, Bobby Samini, Ignacio J. Lazo for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendants Anthony P. Cara, Peter Nisson, and Consumer Defense Law Group, P.C., a law firm and its two attorneys, appeal from a judgment awarding $113,581.95 in damages to plaintiff Julie O’Neill, their former client, for their malpractice. Plaintiff’s home was subject to two encumbrances—a mortgage and a lien. The lienholder initiated foreclosure proceedings, and plaintiff’s home was sold at a foreclosure sale. After a bench trial, the trial court found defendants’ malpractice caused the foreclosure sale because they could have taken actions to prevent the foreclosure. The trial court initially awarded $437,000 in damages to plaintiff, but it reduced the award to $113,581.95 after defendants filed a motion for new trial noting certain errors in the court’s initial calculation. Defendants filed a second motion for new trial, contending the court’s damages calculation was still incorrect and arguing the $113,581.95 award should be further reduced. The court denied the motion for new trial and entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor. On appeal, defendants contend the court’s award of $113,581.95 is not supported by the evidence. Relying on the court’s statements in a minute order issued in response to defendants’ first motion for new trial, defendants likewise argue the court made errors in its calculation. We disagree and affirm the judgment.