Smith Lillis Pitha LLP v. Colburn CA2/3

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and Appellant Pamela Colburn appeals from a judgment resulting from the trial court granting Plaintiff and Respondent Smith Lillis Pitha LLP’s (the Firm) motion for summary adjudication and denying Colburn’s request for leave to file a cross- complaint. We affirm summary adjudication because the Firm met its burden by proving that Colburn breached her contract with the Firm by failing to pay for the work the Firm performed for her. Colburn failed to make competent objections to the evidence supporting summary adjudication below and failed to proffer evidence to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to a cause of action or a defense. We also conclude that the court did not err in correcting its order granting summary adjudication to accurately reflect the principal and interest owed by Colburn. Lastly, the court properly denied leave to file the cross-complaint, as all of Colburn’s causes of action were time- barred.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Colburn was a defendant in two lawsuits, which we refer to as Milbank and Maranon. Colburn hired the Firm to represent her in the Maranon matter in March 2009, and in the Milbank matter in July…