Rakower v. Singh

Filed 1/31/07  Rakower v. Singh CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

                        Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kazuharu Makino, Judge.  Affirmed.

                        Khushwant Sean Singh, in pro. per, for Defendant and Appellant.

                        Stafford & Associates, Timothy J. Stafford and Randal Scott Oakley for Plaintiff and Respondent.

*                      *                      *

                        Khushwant Sean Singh, an attorney, appeals a judgment against him for malicious prosecution filed by Dr.  Stephen R. Rakower.  Singh contends the trial court erred by denying his anti-SLAPP motion,[1] overruling his demurrer, and failing to redact portions of attorney correspondence admitted into evidence.  First, we discern no abuse of discretion in denial of Singh's untimely motion to strike.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §  425.16; further statutory references are to this code unless noted otherwise.)  Second, Singh's demurrer presented questions of fact, and therefore the trial court properly overruled it.  Finally, we conclude the unredacted letters presented little or no prejudice because they contained relevant evidence and, in any event, the trial court prevented any possible prejudice with a limiting instruction.  We therefore affirm the judgment.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

                        Singh filed a malpractice suit against Rakower on January 24, 2002, on behalf of Laura Wilhelm, his paralegal.  Wilhelm alleged Rakower performed an unnecessary breast examination when she consulted him to diagnose a gallbladder problem and evaluate her surgical options.  Singh never attempted to obtain Wilhelm's medical records or an expert opinion on the applicable standard of care.  Wilhelm also filed a complaint against Rakower with the California Medical Board.  The board concluded the complaint lacked merit and declined to take any action against Rakower.

                        On March 8, 2002, Margaret Holm, Rakower's personal attorney, sent Singh a letter complaining he failed to respond to her attempts over several weeks to contact him about the lawsuit.  As we discuss more fully below, Holm's letter also included information Singh claims should have been redacted when the letter was admitted into evidence in Rakower's subsequent malicious prosecution suit.  The trial court rejected Singh's proposed redactions, and admitted the following paragraph of Holm's letter over Singh's objection:  â€