Smith v. Mifflin et al.

Filed 2/20/07  Smith v. Mifflin et al. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ramona See, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Zelig & Associates and Steven L. Zelig for Plaintiff and Appellant.

            Mifflin & Associates and Ken Mifflin for Defendants and Respondents.

________________________

I.          INTRODUCTION

            This is a legal malpractice action.  James Smith, plaintiff, appeals from a judgment of dismissal in favor of defendants, Ken Mifflin and the Law Offices of Mifflin & Associates.  The trial court dismissed this case on the date set for trial.  The trial court found plaintiff had failed to comply with the expert witness designation requirements of former Code of Civil Procedure^[1] section 2034 (now section 2034.010 et seq.).  The trial court found plaintiff could not prevail without presenting expert testimony.  We affirm the judgment.

II.         BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed by plaintiff in pro se on June 15, 2004.  He asserted contract breach and negligence causes of action.  The complaint alleged:  â€