Lockley

Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort

Good Law
110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 877·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 655·2001 Daily Journal DAR 8963·91 Cal. App. 4th 875·66 Cal. Comp. Cases 1061
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 21, 2001B145169California5,510 words

Opinion

Opinion

Woods, J.

Appellant Kim David Lockley appeals from a judgment of dismissal upon the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend in favor of respondent Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort et al. (hereinafter Law Office) on Lockley’s cause of action for legal malpractice. Lockley alleged Law Office failed to protect Lockley’s legal interests in a workers’ compensation claim. Law Office demurred to Lockley’s first amended complaint on the grounds the cause of action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Lockley claims the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend because the statute of limitations governing attorney malpractice was tolled while Law Office represented him. We agree with Lockley because the allegations in Lockley’s complaint create a reasonable inference Law Office continuously represented Lockley in the same specific subject matter without interruption. We therefore reverse.

Factual and Procedural Synopsis

I. Factual Background

Lockley, who is of Korean descent, was employed as a police officer by the City of Seal Beach (hereinafter City). In July, 1987, Lockley sought psychological…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.