Sferrino v. Hoffman

Filed 8/2/06 Sferrino v. Hoffman CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed.

Hitchcock, Bowman & Schachter, Robert Schachter for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Hinshaw & Culbertson, Desmond J. Hinds and Filomena E. Meyer for Defendant and Respondent.

__________________________

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Elizabeth Sferrino dba Love's Barbeque entered into a franchise agreement to open a restaurant. When problems developed between Sferrino and the franchisor, Sferrino sued the franchisor. Defendant and respondent Daniel Hoffman, an attorney, represented Sferrino in that lawsuit. The franchisor filed a motion for summary judgment. Hoffman prepared an opposition to the motion, but the trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in the franchisor's favor. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment. On remand, Sferrino obtained a default judgment against the franchisor, but she did not collect that judgment.

Sferrino then sued Hoffman for professional negligence based on, among other things, Hoffman's alleged failure to meet the standard of care in preparing the opposition to the franchisor's motion for summary judgment. Based on its finding that the Court of Appeal's reversal of the judgment established that Hoffman met the standard of care in preparing the opposition, the trial court precluded evidence on that issue. The matter then proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury found in Hoffman's favor.

Sferrino appeals the judgment in the professional negligence action based on her contention that the trial court's preclusion of evidence constitutes reversible error. We, however, need not decide whether the trial court erred in precluding the evidence, because Sferrino has failed to establish that she was prejudiced by any error. Namely, Sferrino failed to establish an element of her professional negligence action, namely, that she was damaged. We therefore affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. The underlying franchise action, Sferrino v. Custom Food Franchise Group, et al.

In March 1999, Sferrino entered into a franchise agreement with Custom Food Franchise Group (CFFG) to open a Love's Barbeque restaurant in Torrance. She negotiated the agreement with Stuart Benson, who was the CEO of Custom Foods Concept, Inc., a â€