Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: BC631751, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC631751    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 14

Case Background

Plaintiff Shahrokh Mireskandari had a high-profile law practice in England, bringing race discrimination claims against public entities. In 2008, Plaintiff was the subject of a 12-article series in the Daily Mail. These articles discussed disciplinary proceedings taken against Plaintiff, potential financial issues at his firm, and his educational background, right down to his grades.

Plaintiff responded by filing lawsuits in England, in Virginia, and here in California. The lawsuit which is relevant here was filed in the Central District of California in 2012 and heard by Judge Margaret M. Morrow. The complaint in that case alleged a series of invasion of privacy and interference torts. It was ultimately dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Plaintiff then filed a malpractice lawsuit against the firm of Edwards Wildman Palmer (“EWP”) and Dominique Shelton (“Shelton”), the attorneys who initially represented him before Judge Morrow. That action was assigned to this department and bore Case No. BC 517 799. Plaintiff’s complaints in that case followed two fundamental theories: (1) EWP and Ms. Shelton had failed to even discuss anti-SLAPP law with him, and (2) EWP and Ms. Shelton had improperly started acting against his interests (based on a fee dispute) while still his counsel of record.

That case resulted in two published Court of Appeal opinions: Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP v. Superior Court (2014) 231 Cal.App.4^th 1214 and Mireskandari v. Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP (2022) 77 Cal.App.5^th 247. In the latter opinion, the Court of Appeal upheld a defense verdict on breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty but reversed a grant of summary adjudication on a negligence cause of action. On remand, after Plaintiff filed a peremptory challenge to Judge Terry Green, the case was assigned to Judge Michael Stern. It has recently been dismissed.

Plaintiff also filed a malpractice action against three other firms: Marks & Sokolov, Novak Druce Connolly Bove & Quigg, and Seyfarth Shaw, LLP. Those firms also represented Plaintiff, at different times, in the litigation before Judge Morrow, as well as in other litigation conducted in the same District before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. The lawsuit against these three firms was assigned to Judge Gregory Keosian and bore Case No. BC 531 449. It was ultimately dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

All of which brings us to the present litigation. To prosecute his malpractice actions, Plaintiff hired Parker Mills LLP fka Parker Shumaker Mills LLP (“PM”) and David B. Parker (“Parker”). But eventually that relationship soured as well. Plaintiff has now brought claims against PM and Parker, alleging that they failed to competently conduct the malpractice actions.

On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Legal Malpractice (I); (3) Legal Malpractice (II); (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (5) Fraud against Defendants PM, Parker, and DOES 1-10.

On May 29, 2019, Defendants PM and Parker filed their Answer.

On May 14, 2019, Defendants PM and Parker filed their Cross-Complaint for (1)-(2) Breach of Contract, (3)-(4) Account Stated, and (5) Quantum Meruit against Plaintiff and ROES 1-10.

On July 12, 2019, Plaintiff Cross-Defendant filed his Answer.

On November 14, 2019, this court ordered the case stayed in its entirety.

On August 5, 2022, this court lifted the stay.

Trial is currently set for February 5, 2024.

Instant Motion

Defendants PM and Parker now move this court to reimpose the stay pending an appeal of the dismissal order issued by Judge Stern in the underlying case, No. 517 799.

Decision

            The motion is GRANTED. The court sets a status conference for June 13, 2024, at 8:30 am.

The motion is unopposed. This amounts to a concession by Plaintiff that the motion has merit. See California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(a); see also Rule 3.1320(f); Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4^th 1, 20.