Murphy v. Shamilian
Filed 9/13/06 Murphy v. Shamilian CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| MICHAEL C. MURPHY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HAROUTIOUN SHAMILIAN et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B183963 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EC037962) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael S. Mink, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Michael C. Murphy and Michael C. Murphy for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Offices of Leon Small and Leon Small for Defendants and Respondents.
______________________________________
INTRODUCTION
In an attorney's lawsuit against former clients to collect his fees based on an open book account, the trial court found the action was barred by the four-year statute of limitations. We conclude that the statute of limitations period began to run on the date the defendants substituted the lawyer out of the underlying action and the lawyer threatened to sue the clients for outstanding fees. Because the action was filed more than four years after that date, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 26, 1999, Appellant Michael C. Murphy (â€
