This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/02/2019 at 01:20:02 (UTC).

JANAE SCALES ET AL VS RICHARD WOOLEY

Case Summary

On 04/25/2018 a Contract - Professional Negligence case was filed by JANAE SCALES against RICHARD WOOLEY in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3881

  • Filing Date:

    04/25/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Professional Negligence

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Not Yet Classified

DESSELLE STEPHANIE

SCALES JANAE

SCALES JANAE AKA STEPHANIE DESSELLE

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

WOOLEY RICHARD

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

DUFORD LAW LLP

DUFORD CRAIG WILLIAM

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

FEENBERG MICHAEL W. ESQ.

FEENBERG MICHAEL WARREN

 

Court Documents

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT PLAINTIFF JANAE SCALES'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

10/10/2019: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT PLAINTIFF JANAE SCALES'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

Brief - BRIEF DEFENDANT RICHARD WOOLEY'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/25/2019: Brief - BRIEF DEFENDANT RICHARD WOOLEY'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; STATUS CONFERENCE (AL...)

9/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; STATUS CONFERENCE (AL...)

Separate Statement

9/5/2019: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JOSHUA WILLIAMS ISO REPLY

9/5/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JOSHUA WILLIAMS ISO REPLY

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/28/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Opposition - OPPOSITION AMENDED OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/29/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION AMENDED OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

8/7/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Motion for Leave to Amend - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

8/14/2019: Motion for Leave to Amend - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Declaration - DECLARATION OF CRAIG W. DUFORD

8/22/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF CRAIG W. DUFORD

Separate Statement

8/22/2019: Separate Statement

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/22/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

RULING: THE DEMURRER IS OVERRULED. THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED.

9/25/2018: RULING: THE DEMURRER IS OVERRULED. THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED.

NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S. FAILURE TO FILE AND SERVE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

9/19/2018: NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S. FAILURE TO FILE AND SERVE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

7/11/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

Minute Order -

7/26/2018: Minute Order -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

7/30/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

4/25/2018: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

51 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/28/2020
  • Hearing09/28/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • Hearing09/22/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • Hearing02/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Complaint) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference ((All-Purpose)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • DocketBrief (DEFENDANT RICHARD WOOLEY'S FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF ACTUAL INJURY FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS); Filed by Richard Wooley (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiff Janae Scales' Motion for Leave to Amend ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

    Read MoreRead Less
80 More Docket Entries
  • 07/11/2018
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2018
  • DocketProof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Janae Scales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC703881    Hearing Date: November 08, 2019    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: November 8, 2019

Case Name: Scales v. Wooley, et al.

Case No.: BC703881

Motion: (1) Motion for Summary Judgment

(2) Motion for Leave to Amend

Moving Party: (1) Defendant Richard Wooley

(2) Plaintiff Janae Scales

Responding Party: (1) Plaintiff Janae Scales

(2) Defendant Richard Wooley


Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

The Motion for Leave to Amend is denied.


This is a legal malpractice action arising from Defendant Richard Wooley’s (“Defendant”) representation of Plaintiff Janae Scales aka Stephanie Desselle (“Plaintiff”) before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board after Plaintiff could no longer work because of injuries to her wrists and left elbow. (Compl. ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to competently represent her in two ways. First,

Defendant voluntarily provided records to the underlying worker’s compensation insurance company Athens Administrators (“Athens”) revealing that Plaintiff was working. (Id. ¶ 8.) Second, Plaintiff testified truthfully at her deposition that she was working while receiving temporary total disability benefits (“TTD”). (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff was later convicted of insurance fraud. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not protect her from offering incriminating testimony and did not make any attempts to advise her of potential criminal liability. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant did not advise her that she should reimburse her TTD to avoid any potential criminal charges. (Id. ¶ 11.)

On April 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative complaint asserting two causes of action for (1) legal malpractice and (2) breach of fiduciary duty.

Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant seeks summary judgment of all of Plaintiff’s claims. Specifically, Defendant argues that the Court should grant summary judgment because Plaintiff’s claims are barred by: (1) Plaintiff’s inability to prove causation; (2) the doctrine of unclean hands; (3) the actual innocence rule; (4) statute of limitations; or (5) Plaintiff’s inability to prove damages.

On September 11, 2019, the Court tentatively denied the Motion for Summary Judgment, but ultimately continued the Motion for supplemental briefing.

The parties have provided further briefing on the issues of (1) the statute of limitations, (2) causation, and (3) actual innocence.

  1. Statute of Limitations

    Defendant’s argument as to the statute of limitations has no merit because there was not an actual injury triggering the limitations period until Plaintiff was arrested.

    Defendant argues that Plaintiff suffered an actual injury at the time of her March 2015 deposition because her testimony significantly impaired her workers’ compensation matter. Alternatively, Defendant argues Plaintiff suffered actual injury in June 2015 when she terminated Defendant’s representation.

    This would have merit if the Complaint sought damages stemming from Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation action, but it does not. Rather, the Complaint seeks damages relating to Plaintiff’s subsequent arrest and criminal prosecution. Damages relating to Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation matter constitute a separate cause of action which would not trigger the limitations period for the claims pled in the Complaint.

    In sum, Defendant’s statute of limitations argument fails.

  2. Causation

    Defendant essentially argues that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate causation to the extent it was a certainty Plaintiff would be criminally prosecuted whether or not Defendant failed to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege at her deposition.

    Defendant has failed to carry his burden in relation to Plaintiff’s theory that Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff to make restitution so as to preclude criminal prosecution altogether. Defendant argues that Athens had already referred Plaintiff to the District Attorney’s Office prior to Plaintiff’s retention of Defendant (Compendium of Exhibits, Exhibit 4); however, this is not what the cited evidence apparently shows. Rather, the cited evidence indicates that in December 2014 Athens merely intended to refer Plaintiff to the District Attorney’s Office, but that it had not actually done so. The remainder of Defendant’s evidence simply indicates that Athens had knowledge of fraudulent conduct. Thus, Defendant has failed to show that a criminal proceeding was factually inevitable whether or not he provided adequate advice as to restitution. Although not necessary for the disposition of the Motion, the Court takes judicial notice of Athens’ fraudulent claim referral form, which indicates that it had been completed after Plaintiff’s retention of Defendant and her testimony at the March 2015 deposition.

    (c) Actual Innocence

    Defendant alternatively argues that the actual innocence rule bars Plaintiff’s claims. Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to prove that she was actually innocent of her crime.

    “[I]n a criminal malpractice action actual innocence is a necessary element of the plaintiff's cause of action.” (Wiley v. Cty. of San Diego (1998) 19 Cal.4th 532, 545 (“Wiley”).)

    The instant suit--in which civil malpractice is alleged to have caused a criminal conviction--presents a novel set of facts for purposes of determining whether the actual innocence rule applies. It is apparent that Wiley indicates policy reasons both supporting and detracting from the application of the rule to the instant matter.

    However, the Court will not apply the rule to bar Plaintiff’s claim because, at the very least, the actual innocence rule is applied in the circumstance that attorney negligence contributes to a criminal conviction, but, again, one theory posited by Plaintiff is that attorney negligence failed to preclude a criminal proceeding altogether. The actual innocence rule has apparently never been applied to such circumstances.

    In any case, to the extent the rule might be applicable to the foregoing theory or even the claim that Defendant’s civil negligence directly contributed to a conviction, given the factual novelty of this matter, the Court respectfully declines to make a pronouncement in this regard.

    In sum, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

    Motion for Leave to Amend

    On September 11, 2019, the Court tentatively denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint adding a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress as well as a request for punitive damages. However, the Court ultimately continued the Motion without supplemental briefing.

    For the reasons previously stated, the Motion for Leave to Amend is denied.