Daniels

Daniels v. DeSimone

Good Law
13 Cal. App. 4th 600·16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 615·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 145·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1154
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 1993B064309California3,234 words

Opinion

Opinion

Turner, J.

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs, Robert and Mitzie Jean Daniels, appeal from a summary judgment entered against them in favor of defendant Salvatore DeSimone on an attorney malpractice action. We affirm.

II. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed the original complaint on March 3, 1990, and named as defendants Dale D. Billips, the Law Offices of Dale D. Billips, and Patricia Ramsey. The complaint alleged that defendants negligently failed to timely serve an underlying medical malpractice and loss of consortium action within three years after the action was filed which resulted in a dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210. On April 27, 1990, plaintiffs amended the complaint by designating Mr. DeSimone and the law firm of Billips & DeSimone as fictitiously named defendants pursuant to section 474.

Mr. DeSimone answered the complaint and on August 2, 1991, filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that he owed no duty to plaintiffs to serve the complaint because he was never their attorney and that he did not proximately cause plaintiffs’ injuries. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of Mr. DeSimone from which…

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.