Lin v. Shao
Filed 3/9/06 Lin v. Shao CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| DAH-JIUN JOHNSON LIN et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-Defendants, and Respondents, v. LINDA SHAO, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Appellant. | H028074 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV801566) |
In this action for legal malpractice, the parties reached a judicially supervised settlement under which the plaintiff clients agreed in effect to retract, by a filed pleading, certain assertions and allegations they made about the defendant attorney in the course of the litigation. The attorney was dissatisfied with the corrective pleading as filed and sought an order compelling the clients to file a new, more detailed, and differently titled document. The trial court denied the motion and entered a judgment of dismissal based on the settlement. On the attorney's appeal, we find no error in the court's determination that the document filed by the clients conformed to the terms of the settlement. Accordingly, we will affirm.
Background
Plaintiffs Dah-Jiun Johnson Lin, Shi-Cheh Lin, Shi-Ling Tsou, Sun Lin, Shih-Ying Tsou, Shi-Chien Tsou, and the Estate of Chang Lin, brought this action in September 2001 alleging that defendant Linda Shao had been engaged by one of the plaintiffs to represent him in connection with the death of his mother through alleged medical negligence. Plaintiffs alleged that although defendant filed a lawsuit, she negligently allowed certain of their claims to lapse under the statute of limitations, and engaged in other actionable conduct. Defendant answered the complaint and cross-complained for attorney fees.
Plaintiffs engaged substitute counsel in the underlying action for medical malpractice, and eventually settled that matter for $45,000.
On September 10, 2003, the parties settled this matter in negotiations before Temporary Judge Perry Irvine. ~(RT 3)~ Under the agreement, as recited by Mr. Irvine in open court before Judge Manoukian, the parties allocated the underlying settlement proceeds in the amounts of $27,500 to plaintiffs and $17,500 to defendant. As pertinent here, the parties also agreed that counsel for plaintiffs would, within 14 days, â€
