Parvizian v. Jewett

Filed 3/22/06 Parvizian v. Jewett 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Richard Adler, Judge. Affirmed.

Syrus Parvizian, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Margaret A. Jewett, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________________

Syrus Parvizian appeals from the judgment entered after an order granting summary judgment in favor of Margaret A. Jewett in Parvizian's action for legal malpractice. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Jewett's Representation of Parvizian and Her Withdrawal as Counsel

Parvizian retained Jewett in April 2000 to represent him in a dissolution action that had been pending since April 1997. During the next 11 months Jewett became increasingly frustrated with Parvizian's erratic, non-cooperative and abusive conduct. According to Jewett, Parvizian scheduled at least six appointments he failed to attend and did not call to cancel; he refused to advance the costs for a court-ordered expert evaluation, causing detrimental delay to his case; and, beginning in February 2001, he repeatedly sent Jewett faxes expressing concerns about the dissolution proceedings while avoiding her calls; then, when Jewett was finally able to reach him, Parvizian yelled at her for taking too long to respond to him.

A mandatory settlement conference was scheduled in the dissolution action for February 5, 2001. Because of a conflict in her schedule, Jewett had asked another attorney, Herbert Davis, to specially appear at the settlement conference; Jewett provided Davis with a mandatory settlement conference statement for Parvizian dated February 1, 2001. In a telephone conversation with Jewett on February 1, 2001 Parvizian acknowledged he was to attend the conference; and Jewett answered his questions about Davis's qualifications. Jewett also informed Parvizian that Davis would contact him. Although Davis made calls to Parvizian's work and home telephone numbers over a three-day period, Davis was unable to reach Parvizian; and Parvizian failed to respond to the voicemail message Davis left. Jewett also left Parvizian a message on February 4, 2001 reminding him he needed to call Davis before court the following day. Parvizian failed to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on February 5, 2001.

When Parvizian failed to appear at the mandatory settlement conference, counsel for his wife Malak Parvizian[1] advised the court the conference had been set four times before and continued each time. The mandatory settlement conference was again rescheduled, to April 2, 2001; and the parties were ordered to file mandatory settlement conference statements and completed income and expense declarations prior to the next hearing. The court set for hearing on the same date an order to show cause re sanctions against Parvizian for his failure to attend the February 5, 2001 conference. Counsel for Malak Parvizian served Parvizian with notice of the court's orders.

Jewett filed a motion to withdraw as Parvizian's attorney of record on March 7, 2001. Because that motion was pending, the court on April 2, 2001 continued the mandatory settlement conference and sanctions hearing until June 20, 2001. Parvizian was present at the April 2, 2001 hearing and conceded at his deposition that he had heard the discussion of Jewett's pending motion to withdraw as his counsel.

Jewett's motion to withdraw was heard and granted on April 13, 2001. Jewett served Parvizian by mail with a notice of the withdrawal as well as with a â€