2018-00237658-CU-PN

Erin Christensen vs. Mark T. Gallagher

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Stay of Action

Filed By: Einsohn, Jeffrey S.

Plaintiff’s motion to stay case pending resolution of underlying litigation s GRANTED, as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person or by telephone.

Moving counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4)

Factual Background

This is a legal malpractice action. Plaintiff alleges she retained defendant attorneys to file and prosecute an action against her employer but despite filing the action in 2015, it was never served and was recently dismissed by court order. Upon learning this, plaintiff retained new counsel to file a new action against her now former employer based on those causes of action not yet barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff also retained counsel to sue her former attorneys for malpractice in the handling of the 2015 action.

Plaintiff now seeks to stay the present action against her former attorneys, a recently dissolved partnership, because its prosecution will unduly prejudice her 2018 action against her former employer.

One of the defendant attorney opposes, arguing that is undisputed he had no personal involvement in the handling of plaintiff’s now dismissed 2015 action and that imposing a stay would be unduly prejudicial to his attempt to clear his name.

Analysis

The court finds good cause to grant the requested stay. First, but for defendants’ apparently negligent handing of plaintiff’s 2015 action, the present malpractice action

would be unnecessary. Second, the court agrees that the simultaneous prosecution of this action (in which there is no protection from disclosure of attorney-client communication and attorney work product) may well and likely will unduly, substantively and irretrievably prejudice plaintiff’s prosecution of her remaining claims against her former employer, all of which could be obviated by imposing the requested stay. Third, while the court may be sympathetic to the opposing defendant’s desire to promptly clear his name, the mere fact the opposing defendant may have had no personal involvement in the handling of plaintiff’s now dismissed 2015 action will not necessarily entitle him to dismissal or judgment if, as alleged, his former law firm was a partnership. When the relative equities are weighed, this court finds they weigh heavily in favor of protecting plaintiff from further prejudice at the hands of her former attorneys who alone could have avoided the present predicament.

According, plaintiff’s motion to stay the present action is granted and the present action is hereby stayed pending resolution of plaintiff’s 2018 action against her former employer, unless the court orders otherwise.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, moving counsel to prepare a proposed order consistent with the foregoing.