Deen

Deen v. Kreditor CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 11, 2022G059670California1,473 words

Opinion

Opinion

Goethals, J.

FACTS

In September 2018, Deen and Khwaja (plaintiffs), filed a form complaint for malpractice, personal injury, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract2 against defendants. However, they did not serve the complaint on any defendant. The court scheduled a case management conference (CMC) for January 28, 2019; plaintiffs sought a continuance of the CMC to pursue mediation on January 8. On January 16, plaintiffs filed a notice of stay of proceedings pursuant to arbitration of attorney fees and costs. The court continued the CMC several times. Kreditor made a special appearance in connection with the September 13, 2019 CMC to explain the status of the fee arbitration to the court. The court again continued the CMC at the request of plaintiffs. On September 28, Deen filed a voluntary petition under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. She followed that with a notice of a purported automatic stay, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 362. Kreditor again appeared specially at the October 25, 2019 CMC. Counsel informed the court she was willing to accept service of the complaint on behalf of the named defendants; the court ordered plaintiffs to serve the complaint and issued an order to…

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.