Kidd

Kidd v. Kopald

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1301·31 Cal. App. 4th 132·36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 875·94 Daily Journal DAR 18238·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9828
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 28, 1994B072109California6,993 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldrich, J.

Introduction

Plaintiff and appellant Katheryn Kidd (Kidd) appeals from the order of dismissal of her action for legal malpractice against defendants and respondents Steven Kopald (Kopald) and the law firm Kopald & Mark (collectively Kopald) for failure to bring the case to trial within three years.

Kidd contends reversal is in order because the trial court based the dismissal on the stated grounds that Kidd failed to serve the summons and complaint within two years of filing the complaint, contrary to the facts. Also, Kidd suggests any delay in prosecuting the action was reasonable in order to learn the results of the underlying lawsuit and the alleged malpractice.

We find there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court and therefore affirm the order.

Factual and Procedural Background

On March 14, 1989, Kidd, also known as Katheryn Rusyniak, filed a complaint alleging defendants undertook to represent Kidd with respect to a business matter involving Neal’s Cookies in Hollywood, California, and negligently caused loss of insurance benefits and other damages. The summons and complaint were served by mail on the law firm and Kopald respectively on February 27, 1991,…

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.