# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Magyar v. Olan

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385009_2759%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1991
- **Citation:** 502 U.S. 958

## Text

— a
Busremns Court, U3,
41° 496 FILED
SEP 23 \99)
!
NO. QeFINE OF THE CLERK |

IN THE

ae

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM 1991

LEO MAGYAR and

MAGDALENA MAGYAR, Petitioners
vs.

BENNET OLAN, ESQ.,

LESTER, FRIEDMAN, ESQ. and

LINDA HORNER, ESQ, Respondents.

PETITION FOR A_WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

LEO D. MAGYAR

400 N. Martel Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 30036
Phone: (213) 653-3069
Petitioner Pro Persona

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Whether the Law and Motion Judge to
order, or to allow, Summary Proceedings,
before opportunity is given to plaintiffs
to present their cases is in violation of
the plaintiffs' fundamental rights to be
heard.

Whether the Law and Motion Judge can
rightfully disregard petitioners' Motion
for Early Trial Setting Date filed before

the commencement of Summary Proceedings.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Questions Presented i
Table of Contents ii
Table of Authorities iv
Opinions Below 1
Jurisdiction 3
Jurisdiction and Statutory 3
Provisions Involved
Manner in Which Constitutional 4
Claims are raised
Statement of the Case 6
Reasons for Granting the Writ 20
Conclusion
Appendix:
A. Supreme Court California la 1A
Denial of Review (626.91)
B. Court of Appeals California 1B
Opinion (4.4.91)
C. Court of Appeals California 1C
Denial of Rehearing (4.23.91)
D. Superior Court of California 1D

Notice of Ruling (5.14.90)

3]

@

iii

Superior Court of California
Order Granting Motion for Summary
Judgement and Judgement (1.5.90)

Superior Court of California
Motion of Ruling (12.20.89)

Superior Court of California
Notice of Ruling (9.18.89)

1E

iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Gigax v. Ralston Purina Co. (1982) 24
136 CA 3d 591, 186 CR 395
Hayman v. Block 22
176 CA 3d 629, 638-639, 222CR 293, 298
Maxwell v. Coburn (1980) 22
105 3d 180, 185, 163 CR 912, 914
Segura v. Brundage (1979) 23
9. CA 34 19, 26; i535 CR 777, 782
Societe International Pour 10
Participations Industrielle
et Commerciales S.A. v. Rogers,
357 U.S. 197, 209 (19586),
Weid & Brown: GUIDE (10:10) as

CONSTITUTION & RULES
California Insurance Code 790.03, 7
and subsections
Court Code Sec. 68600 (AB3300) 9

Fifth Amendment of the Constitution 359530

Eighth Amendment of the Constitution 5,18

U.S. Supreme Ct Rule 13 © K

CCP §36 Motion for Preference 24

IN THE
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER Term 1991

LEO MAGYAR and
MAGDALENA MAGYAR, Petitioners

VS.
BENNET OLAN, ESQ.,

LESTER, FRIEDMAN, ESQ. and
LINDA HORNER, ESQ. Respondents.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

Petitioner Leo Magyar, respectfully
prays that a writ of Certiorari issue to
review the California Supreme Court's
Denial, entered on June 26, 1991, to review
the California Court of Appeals Confirma-
tion of the Summary Judgement ordered by

the Superior Court of California.

0 NITOA RETO
The Second Appellate District,
Division One (No. B051691, $021010) in the

Supreme Court of the state of California,

IN BANK DENIED, Appellant's petition for
review of the Opinion of California Court
of Appeal; Leo Magyar et al. v. Olan,
Eriedman, et al. The Denial of the
California Supreme Court is reproduced in
Appendix A. The-reproduced unpublished
Opinion of the California Court of Appeals
(BO051691, Super Ct No. C603609, dated April
4, 1991), confirming the Summary Judgement
appears in Appendix B.

The California Court of Appeals Denial
of Petition for Rehearing in Appendix C.

The reproduced Order of Granting
Summary Judgement and the Notices of Ruling
of the Superior Court of California are
Appended as follows: Notice of Ruling
dated 5/14/90 in Appendix D, Order Granting
Summary Judgement, dated January 5, 1990 in
Appendix E, Notice of Ruling dated December
20, 1989 in Appendix F, Notice of Ruling

dated September 18, 1989 in Appendix G.

JURISDICTION

The Denial of the California Supreme
Court to Review the case was entered on
June 26, 1991. This petition is filed
within 90 days of that date. United States
Supreme Court Rule 13.

Federal questions conflicting the
Fifth and the Eighth Amendment to the

Constitution were timely raised by

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION -
FIFTH AMENDMENT:

"No person shall be held to answer for
a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a
Grand Jury except in cases arising in the

land or naval forces, or in the Militia,

when in actual service in time of War or
public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall
be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just

compensation."

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION -
EIGHTH AMENDMENT.

Excessive bail shall not be required,
nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and

unusual punishments inflicted.

MANNER IN WHICH CONSTITUTIONAL
CLAIMS WERE RAISED-

The very first sentence in the

APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF to the California

Court of Appeals was: "Did the Superior
Court abuse its discretion and violate
appellant's due process rights by directing
respondents to move for summary judgement
and by granting summary judgement?" Please
see Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

On page 21 of the Brief (supra)
petitioners state as follows: "To represent
that the judgement was punitive is nothing
Short of putting the blame on the court,
for punishing for the conduct of the one,
the other plaintiff also, which judgement
would be, while far not as grave, but just
as unconstitutional as..."

The above was with reference to the
issue presented by respondents_in their
Motion for Summary Judgement in conflict

with the Eighth Amendment to the United

States Constitution.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Respondent -defendants have represented
as attorneys the Petitioner-plaintiffs ina
lawsuit against the United Fire Insurance
Company (hereafter UFIC) ina lawsuit
(hereafter underlying case) Claiming unpaid
benefits Promised by health insurance
policies, |

Petitioners, while they were husband
and wife, each of them have individually
Owned their Policies, and were separate
Dlaintiffs.

Petitioner Plaintiff Pro se Leo
Magyar, a high school graduate, has limited
command of English, and has no prior |
experience in legal matters.

Plaintiff Magdalena Magyar has worked
for years as a radiation therapist in
hospitals and, had she been asked at the

trial of the underlying case, she could

have competently testified on questions
relative to hospitals, doctors, and medical
treatments.

Both plaintiffs have been American
citizens since much before the underlying
action and before the insurance policies
offered by the defendant insurer were
accepted by them.

Respondent attorneys have filed suit

(NOV. 22, 1982) against the UFIC in the
Superior Court of California for Breach of
Contract, Intentional tort, Declaratory
relief, and breach of Insurance Code
section 790.03 with the claims being
Supported by the subsections (h) (2),
(h) (3), (mh) (4), (nh) (5), and (h) (13) asking
for damages of $56,067.64 plus 10% interest
and for exemplary damages of $500,000.00
(CT 45-52).

The policies involved were: one to

each of the petitioner-plaintiffs, insured

by Valley Forge Insurance Company policies
assumed by the UFIC and one of each of the
plaintiffs, issued by the UFIC. All of
these policies were promising nominal per
diem benefits payable on hospital stays,
and not on expense incurred basis. In
addition, petitioner Leo Magyar owned a
policy offered and issued by the UFIC with
benefits for hospital, medical and surgical
expenses limited to and aggregate benefit
of three thousand dollars.

The computation of the damage of
$56,067.64 was done by respondent-attorneys
(CT 204-208) with their listing marking the
unprecedented variations and frequency of
the years-long systematic violation of just
about every subsection of sect 790.03 of
the California Insurance Code.

Lacking opposition on the part of the
Respondents, the underlying case was

subsequently removed to the US District

Court which, after an aborted trial, ruled
that the dismissal of the case was on the
merit (CT 220-221).

On June 9, 1986, Petitioners filed
Suit against Respondents indicating tort as
the reason.

The instant case is provoked by the
Respondent-defendants' action and failure
to act before, during, and after the trial
of the underlying case.

The Superior Court has assigned the
case to its Department 18 to be processed
under the Rules of a pilot program to be
developed i.a. with the solicited
contributory suggestions of experienced
attorneys, to reduce the delays in trials.
This project, known as the "Fast Tract", is
operating under Court-Code Sec. 68600 also
known as AB3300.

During the courses of the proceedings,

Petitioner Magdalena Magyar has deceased at

age 76 (CT 138).

The present petition is on the
California Court of Appeals Opinion
confirming the Summary judgement brought in
the Superior Court of California.

The purpose of the Summary Proceedings
is to find whether there is at least one
triable issue.

And, as stated in (Dvorin v. Appellate
Dept. (1975) 15c 3d 648, 125 CR 771)
"Summary Judgement cannot, however, be
ordered by the court on its own motion"

In their Opening Brief (on page 15)
petitioners pointed out that the Law and
Trial Judge directed Respondents to move
for Summary Judgement and have shown that
the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution
ensures that no person will be deprived of
property without the due process of law.
The United States Supreme Court, in Societe

International Pour Participations

10

Industrielle et Commerciales S.A. v.
Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 209 (1958),
recognized that "there are constitutional
limitations upon the power of courts, even
in aid of their own valid processes, to
dismiss an action without affording a party
the opportunity for hearing on the merits
of his cause.”

Respondents were unable to controvert
this fact.

The California Court of Appeals'
statement that "neither is there any
evidence the trial court directed
defendants to move for summary judgement"
is erroneously taken as if any motion for
summary judgement had been previously
filed, it had not been any Status
Conference held.

In addition, summary proceedings
should not be granted, due to the fact,

that the petitioner's motions listing about

11

twenty causes of action were twice before
the Court of Appeals and before the Law and
Motion Judge (CT 14-22, 212-49). A third
sampling of the issues claimed was included
in the Appellant's Opening Brief, as
follows:
Pages numbered 3 through 10 of Exhibit
No. 2S (CT 15-22), enclosed to the
opposition of the Appellants to the motion
of the Respondents for Summary Judgment,
lists the damaging actions, the negligence
and the lack of understanding the
underlying case by the Respondents. Some of
these causes of actions are listed below:
The Respondents
- did not name in the Complaint as
Defendants one of the insurers who
issued two of the policies in the
case,
- kept Appellants uninformed on the

Status of the case by hiding important

12

documents from tnem,

- did not properiy oppose the
transfer of the case to the U.os.
District Court,

- carried the case without being
informed on the rules of the court,

- neglected to call in witnesses for the
trial,

- failed to prepare Appellants-

Plaintiffs for witnessing,

Appellants,

- discredited plaintiffs several times
before the Court, saying that the
plaintiff wanted his day in the court
and that the plaintiff wanted the sun,
the moon and the stars,

- appeared unprepared to assist
Appellants at the depositions,

- failed to prepare the case for trial,

- failed to present the proofs at the

13

trial,
- failed to point out that the
adverse party
a) lied
b) manipulated documents
c) deceived the Court
d) extorted insurance policy
provisions,

- appeared at the trial unprepared,
uninformed, uninterested,
preconditioned to lose the case,

- did not understand the policy contract
or the dispositions of the laws,

- _-abandoned their client-Appellants,
contumaciously to the order of the
Court,

- confirmed the court order that the
case was tried on the merits, and

- refused to timely release the files,
resisting the court order, and they

did so in spite of the multiple

14

a

requests by attorney J. Lichtman and

on behalf of the Appellants.

In their Opening Brief, petitioner
cited authors R.I. Weil and I.A. Brown, Jr.
relating (10:144,1) Courts follow a three
prong analysis in ruling a motion for
summary judgement...... Se ane ae First what
issues are framed by the pleadings, since
the motion and opposition must be addressed
to these issues (10:145.1)?”"

None of the above issues were
mentioned in the respondents' motion. The
Court of Appeals was thoughtless about it.

The court of appeals was thoughtless
as well about the petitioners calling the
Court's attention to the fact that the
issues raised by the respondents as non-
disputed were sham pleadings, presenting no
real issues of facts to be determined by

court procedures (CT 41-43). Exceptions to

15

a

it are the issues #5, stating that because
of the plaintiff's refusal to answer
question the court dismissed the case and
issue #7 which was supported by the
declaration of John Taylor.

Notwithstanding the fact that none of
the issues were framed to the claims
pleaded by petitioners, respondents (CT 42)
and declarant (CT 44) stated that the
underlying case was dismissed by the court
because of the refusal by plaintiff to
answer questions while witnessing.

This position of the respondents was
adopted by the Court of Appeals of
California in the last entry of part II of
the Opinion:

"In short, it is unequivocally clear
that Mr. Magyar's conduct in the face of
repeated warnings from the trial judge did,
in the end, result in the dismissal of the

underlying action."

16

The above Opinion of the California
Court of Appeals is in striking conflict
with the Opinion of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which read
in part as follows:

"Point #5 in Discussion. . . “if the
dismissal had been a sanction for failure
to comply with a court order, might have
amounted to an abuse of discretion..."
"However, the record shows that plaintiffs
were scheduled to present at least one
other witness after Mr. Magyar. When
plaintiff's counsel declined to produce it,
the record was left devoid of evidence
Supporting the Magyar's case... with
nothing in the record to support
plaintiff's case, United was clearly
entitled to a dismissal." Copy of the
above cited Opinion has been enclosed as

Exhibit (#11) to Appellant's Briefs.

17

The California Court of Appeals has
also overlooked that the statement in Mr.
Taylor's Declaration (CT 44) showing that
the case was dismissed due to plaintiff's
failure to respond to examination...", and
that the issues #4 and 5 in respondents
separate statements of undisputed material
facts to read: "...plaintiff Leo Magyar
refused to answer many of the questions
posed..." and "5. Because of this refusal
by plaintiff, the court dismissed the case
in its entirety." are, both statements,
virtual allegations that the US District
Court was covering up with its Judgement on
the merit, penalties, imposed not only on
the witnessing party, but on the other
separate plaintiff who, except of spelling
her name, wordlessly attended the trial,
which judgement had heen too cruel and too
unusual punishment for her, conflicting the

Amendment VIII of the Constitution.

18

YT’ , ‘ - . 7
Though without rererence to the

. } te . [ T )
he Appellant's Spening Brief (Paaqe
Dun] LVe Bes és It Ning 21107 JI Puttin ii€
y + iar + + (* 11+ ¢ 19 + ob 7
Dlame on the District U2 rOr punishing
en - mnryile+ + ~ - r - - t - >
ie hs Ne & JT A - ™ os 112 ( Me et — QO ilé I
ry) iz nri3$st aT g
he? de Gh de BE Ge > de & ai 900 ° , °
~ + Valal-Ya + rhe vy + r y ‘Mata, + ’
= “ 4 +e - ‘ 4 - 4s Hae At he 4 —_ - Js
f
jem . 4 ) tO, MmMNaArts T a has r)?
> 2On For summary Judgement,
y Ir Inn co r ' 1) mort > > ,* , - +
petitioners have s IODM1tCted as an e “ZNID I
rhea Carn ry Ft + bh ctr r wn + +heo
(#3) he PY Of tne last page o; ne
. aah lie diy — Boa eb abi eata Cc rT) - F r mlwinc
KReDPOrter’s AFenSsScrinvte In ne Anderily LNG
. °c r Y rorcier | - -F 7 io + +
cS e ana repz IAUCeC -s1e Ww) we Be: Ol ~t1e2
YITamMIce: ~ - ~~ mNIYr? rry runny
ALOIILSGSaAL, et — os As - JT ae |
uUpT DP "IC AIDED VT pnrrmaren a TyARaree
? A r is d rs rd o .
4 ~~ . 4 aVin 4 fa > Athans al 4mm es ey #4 Herta’ .
a “Lath. RTS LITTIM CH m- —~Ae? ¢ wrANYTY
~ fi diviil £ sv A Se SP re Pe ae ef dadiy a\JUT
HONOR
NUNUKR.
PUD ‘ATriIpom.,.
lad ra
[THE COURT:

THAT BEING THE CASE, THIS MATTER IS
DISMISSED ON THE COURT'S MOTION AND I GRANT
FURTHER THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION EARLIER

MADE. (CT 161-162).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

Certiorari should be granted for the
following reasons:

The case has never reached trial and
in essence not even status conference, as
the conference was used only the Law and
Motion Judge to direct respondents to move
for summary judgement.

The subject of the present petition is
on the granting the Summary Judgement by
the Superior Court of California, and on
the Confirmation of the Judgement by the
California Court of Appeal.

In summary proceedings the motion must

be directed to issues raised by pleadings.

20

The material facts for purpose of summary
judgement motion are those pleaded. Thus,
the declarations or other evidence
submitted must be addressed to the claims
raised in the pleadings. (Weil and Brown)
Guide (10:10)

None of the issues pleaded were
brought up by respondents in that motion.
John Taylor, who had admitted that he was
not designated as expert witness in this
law suit and that he had reviewed several
(not all of the) materials, did not address
in his declaration to any of the issues
pleaded by petitioners. In fact, delcarant
J. Taylor produced no admissible evidence
and the declaration was nothing more than
hearsay. His opinicn was his belief, and

not personal knowledge of facts.

21

The declaration mist:

° Show the deciarant's personal
knowledge and competency to
testify.

° State evidenciary facts, not
conclusions, and

° Not contain inadmissible hearsay
Or opinions (Hayman v. Block
(1986) 176 CA 3d 629, 638-639,
222 CR 293, °98)

Moreover: "The oprosing party has no
burden to controvert the moving party's
declarations if such declarations
themselves,... disclose a eviabic issue" of
fact. (Maxwell v. Coburn 1980) 105 3d 180,
185, 163 CR 912, 914).

The declaration is in conflict with
the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeal.

"Defendant's burden is to dispute
every claim or theory presentec in the

complaint, even those ceficiently

22

pleaded..." (Segura v. Brundage (1979) 91
CT 3d 19,28, 153 CR 777, 782).

Non of the twenty claims presented in
petitioners' pleadings have been disproved.
In the order Granting Motion for
Summary Judgement (Appendix E) it is stated
"Having considered all of the evidence set

forth in the papers submitted, and the
inferences reasonably deductible therefrom,
the Court determined that there is not
triable issue as to any material fact and
that defendants are entitled to judgement
is a matter of law".

The order was prepared by respondents
and was signed by Judge of the Superior
Court.

If it is not specified that the
judgement was rendered by the Judge, while
in his capacity of Law and Motion Judge.
"However a law and motion judge has no

power to weigh evidence or references..."

23

(Gigax v. Ralston Purina Co. (1982) 136 CA
3d 591, 186 CR 395).

Weighing evidence or inferences is
trying, which means that there is issue to
be tried at trial.

Most importantly, in conflict with the
Fifth Amendment to the Constituion it was
denied plaintiffs to present their cases.

One other reason why certiorary should
be issued is that Summons indicated TORT as
issue, what includes abuse of fiduciary
responsibilities. Part of the $56,000
claim in the Summons disappeared,
presenting claims for $13,000 at the trial
of the underlying case.

The conclusion; certiorary should be
granted because petitioner moved for early
trial setting date before summary
proceedings have commenced.

"CCP-§36 Motion for Preference in

Civil Action - Party who is over 70...

24

(a) A party to a civil (1) action who
s over the age of 70 years may petition
the court for a preference, which the court
shall grant if the court makes all of the
SLlowing findings:
(1) The party has a substantial
r in the action as a whole."

This petition of the petitioner was

r “) Cy : ig c i } . + -
iot granted by the Superior Court of California.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,
petitioner respectfully requests that a
writ of certiorari issue to review the

judgement of the California Supreme Court.+/|

Dated, September 21, 1991

Respectfully submitted,

Leo D. Magyar

400 No. Martel Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Petitioner Pro Per

1 If this Court elects to summary direct the Superior
Court of California to hold a trial of the case, it is requested to
order a jury trial and the respecting petitioner's motion for an
early trial setting date.

26

Pr
ty
¥

r x

Mmm»
ae a oo
cr ry ™
Jad

oa

r
rr
~s

'
xT
rv
a¥
f\ r+

=" a setae — - »
mM TRY ~~ . men
JO aav avin ‘ aes
r ry ry ramon > ORT TMmAR.A TF
4 p J Al (BOS . 4 nH Il ) )
af a\7 a fal Ve J ad haa =) wa VV it - 4UYU SF

ee

NOT TO RE PUBLISHED

IN THE
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

LEO MAGYAR and MAGDALENA
MAGYAR, B051691

Case No.C603609

Plaintiffs and Appellants )NOTICE oF RULING
vs.

OLAN & FRIEDMAN,
BENNET OLAN,

LESTER FRIEDMAN and
LINDA HORNER,
Defendants and
Respondents.

eee eee ee ee ee ee

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, Eric E.

Younger, Judge. Affirmed.

Leo D. Magyar, in pro. per., for Plaintiffs
and Appellants.

Baker, Silberberg & Keener and Thomas F.
McAndrews for Defendants and Respondents.

1B

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Leo Magyar and Magdalena
Magyar appeal from a summary judgment
entered in favor of defendants Olan &
Friedman, Bennet Olan, Lester Friedman and

Linda Horner.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendants represented plaintiffs ina
federal suit against United Fire Insurance
Company, in which plaintiffs sought
declaratory relief and alleged breach of
contract and fraud. Specifically,
plaintiffs alleged United Fire Insurance
Company acted in bad faith in refusing to
make payments on plaintiffs' claims for
health insurance benefits. United Fire
Insurance Company defended the action by
asserting plaintiffs were attempting to
obtain insurance proceeds fraudulently by

visiting a number of European health spas

2B

and then claiming the visits as hospital
stays. In addition, United Fire Insurance
Company asserted plaintiff Leo Magyar had
made material misrepresentations when
applying for the policies.

During the trial of the underlying
action, plaintiff Leo Magyar repeatedly
gave non-responsive answers to questions
asked on cross-examination. He continued to
do so even after the trial judge gave him
several warnings and expressly directed him
to give responsive answers. Each of the
questions to which he gave a non-responsive
answer posed a potential danger to the
success of plaintiffs' case. After warning
Mr. Magyar that another non-responsive
answer would result in the striking of his
testimony, the district court judge took
precisely that step when Mr. Magyar again
gave a non-responsive answer. Defendants

informed the court the plaintiffs had no

3B

other witnesses to offer, after which the
district court dismissed the case.

John Taylor is an expert in the field
of legal malpractice. In his opinion,
defendants' representation of plaintiffs in
the underlying action complied with the
professional standard of care and did not
result in the dismissal of the underlying

action.

CONTENTIONS

I
Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in
_ granting summary judgment, in that there
clearly are triable issues of material

fact.

bs
Plaintiffs further contend the trial
court violated their right to due process

of law by directing defendants to move for

4B

Summary judgment, predetermining the
outcome of the summary proceedings and
denying plaintiffs an early trial setting

date.

III
Finally, plaintiffs assert the trial
court erroneously continued to handle the

case under the delay reduction project.

DISCUSSION
I

Plaintiffs contend the trial court
erred in granting summary judgment, in that
there clearly are triable issues of
material fact. We disagree.

Summary judgment properly is granted
where the “affidavits, declarations,
admissions, answers to interrogatories,
depositions, and matters as to which

judicial notice... may be taken" in

5B

support of and opposition to the motion
"show that there is no triable issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (b),
(c).) Summary judgment is a drastic
procedure to be used with caution;
accordingly, the moving papers will be
Strictly construed while the opposing
papers will be liberally construed. (Molko
v. Holy Spirit Assn, (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092,
1107.)

In order to secure summary judgment,
the moving party must demonstrate that
there is no material question of fact
requiring trial on any hypothesis
whatsoever. (Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn.,
Supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 1107.) In
determining the motion, the court must
consider presumptions and draw inferences

from the facts adduced where the inference

6B

is the only reasonable one which may be
drawn (see Unjian v. Berman (1989) 208
Cal.App.3d 881, 884, review den. May 23,
1989; Hooks v. Southe Per te
Medical Group (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 435,
441), but has no power in a summary
proceeding to weigh one inference against
another or against other evidence (id. at
p. 442; Brown v.
Genes oe 144, 145). (Code Civ. Proc.,
Sorc, SUBG. (c).)

On appeal, review is limited to the

facts shown in the evidence submitted in

support of and opposition to the motion.

(McDaniel v. Sunset Maner Co, (1990) 220
Cal.App.3d 1, 5; Garcia v. Wetzel (1984)

159 Cal.App.3d 1093, 1095.) Since the trial
court's decision is one of law, the
reviewing court independently considers the
construction and effect of the supporting

and opposing papers. (McDaniel, supra, at

7B

|

Pp. 5; Hoffman v. Citade] General Assurance,

Ltd, (1989) 194 Cal.App.3d 1356, 1362.) Any
factual conflicts will be resolved in favor
of the party opposing the motion. (Zejijlman

v. County of Kern (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d

Notwithstanding plaintiffs'
characterizations, the instant action
really involves nothing more than a claim
»9£ legal malpractice. While plaintiffs
allege numerous omissions on the part of
the defendants, each of these omissions
pertains to the manner in which the
defendants prosecuted the underlying action
on plaintiffs’ behalf. In one instance,
plaintiffs do allege a seemingly unrelated
breach of contract, asserting defendant
Bennet Olan contracted to provide his
personal services in the prosecution of the
underlying action rather than the services

of his associates, but he did not do so.

8B

pate:

,
22 Q1iIM 1 me - 2 ? a F + - 2 > - Bs r
AsSSuUMIiNg the UGC OI 1 Allegation,

wnetner plaintiffs were damaged again turns
ym tne manner in wnich the defendants

prosecuted tne underlying action. If either
"nere was no professional negligence or any

- - on mayan} r
re iatio ISN1Ip and awrongful act Or omission
7

' m4 rT yr s IMaAaTr ; 4 m~rnarirecari r a 4 . r
WNnILCH aa ge} sintla -Ciy -G4 4sead wali Lv +GCuUs Gl
o } r Yr 1nac A f\
ar aCY Cc + ‘; myvor / 4
lama wes . e_ a) dey Oa V « at SLL mes + 306) “a tF 4
a , In 40 * ro, ne nr — ‘ a
2-44 -ApPp. 1A 14 , / on i f1€ 2. 4@4i1UsGa £ U 4 > a de
,er ‘| Termin 2 vy wrherner a as "J Cc 3
ipPp J eG a as ecermining Wie nerz -t1€ € was G
al
ala rye. i ah a v fmmaie a ae a -r a . ramr ,Y¥
WLULIGLA ues An +s 4s ADIs & Sse ~ a a a _ ~thssD ew w
- P r a diy I code Ma to | 7 -- VEO JL GCLenaants
competent representation unless other

ry
se)
ct
ae
x
t
wm
Fi
ct
J
et)
ct
O
rh
, ‘ . mn ry y ir-y ry r? > —. y
} = ; 3 é
i ait > aa And ‘a Sa WZ ‘
~ ha, t+hraea paar 1f=#raor y —— ‘ + an
eto o A > i b/ 4 é i ae A
anal =" y ror . r+ _+ +, y ‘ r . r ron ror ra + r ’
'¢' a 4 Jilipy tA Caids , a44VEU431G ad ; 4 b/ 4 as
& 4 4 “ru er ‘ ry" ‘7 , ’ ~ - ry ~ - +
a / 4 y 2 r at r ] - r
LO! > IVEY. 1tiey Knew 1s S ry + r + y Mmmnarts
AU VAaAIIC Wii€T) Llé ) 4 t) I I siITUTLA Fy
udament lath ] y > ‘a= rrd een. _ + + rnan +h on
Ai +e WWIULU Lé ad ai Ae 4 db od Am 4 pa A 44
amr lan , aan =" ? Yer ,rea ¥ mrs + , + -+hHo
ALilhY 4 a / A b | roe ' oe 4 ii J 6iS
— r + aate -a » , 2 a ‘ ~ + + Mmannaran
Ji. 4Vil,y 7 — Ad ae" » a, 4 s ; 441d A
reer 1 + ( “; ss Ve y . > + r he,
. y A - - - 4 & - ‘ s A A & - ‘ 2 .
ay: Mcimanrt + + rmoar
as - 4 Ai Li 4 ees A
mA i — mriAaT + ‘IF
ba be [ '-) LIE
Ww A Do Es isda DIAG)

v¥

18B

—
JAGYRR
a ee ae a a ‘ -_- a

, 991

es

J9FFICE OF THE CLERK
(OURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

‘ORO ARIT ADDL rATLO mrerpT mn
Je LOND Al PELLATE Uiolnd A
. “pm KT IT CR ‘TrpY
ROBERT N. WILSON, LERK
TTtTTC Ty " foal A }
A AwWd iN ATI 1/ / |
7 RA -
Leo D. Magyar
an RY nA; —
400 N. Martel Avenue
a ~ - “* r, 2
Los Angeles, A 10036
r nA .
| 1agy ir , c }
Ta)
VO
} +
lan, Bennet
‘7 > c ¢ 4
7 v - +
A f 2
IS ANGQel€ WO »U )
wr rvr Y
a Jt +
mMrTmTA ft r CrioanADpTrAwr OMIT OT
PETITI Ai* cr JIN REHE AINA IV AJ hs dh VY A Lhd

Cl

, rym.
fab? > > f
EE GsiVis 4 2d
sm . , ee oe
WJ 4 in i Oe Ss he
"9 nrmrmr -orr “ita / honk a ’ ee ee oe oe eo
A = ee fa 1s y be r
a af ws il fyita/ a Jitasil 4 s mnsnt a Jatisaseatt
rT . ale at ht hatane ~r ,rrrrnmwasTr FF
Lk be \e7 } . 4
43 or A edd Js asada JD .ata >
, mY , CrA Cf
A? ‘ 2 ¢ y'
Jat krirt es VV

MA’ I 19
y,

Thomas F. McAndrews, #120014
BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER

2850 Ocean Park Boulevard

Suite 300

Santa Monica, California 90405
Telephone: (213) 399-0900

Attorneys for Defendants
BENNET OLAN, ESQ.
LESTER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.

LINDA HORNER, ESQ.
CHARLES A. CORREIA, ESQ.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

LEO MAGYAR and MAGDALENA Case No.C603609

MAGYAR,
Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF RULING
vs.

BENNET OLAN, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )
)

TO PLAINTIFFS LEO MAGYAR and MAGDALENA
MAGYAR, In Propria Persona:
The Motion of plaintiffs, Leo MAGYAR

and MAGDALENA MAGYAR, for Reconsideration

ID

of the Court's earlier ruling granting
summary judgement as to defendants, came on
for hearing on May 8, 1990 in Department
"18" of the above-entitled court before the
Honorable Eric Younger. Plaintiff, LEO
MAGYAR, appeared in Propria Persona.
Defendants appeared by way of counsel,
Thomas F. McAndrews, of the law firm of

Baker, Silberberg & Keener.

Reconsideration as well as defendant's
opposition thereto, and listening to oral
argument from plaintiff, the court ordered
as follows:

1) That plaintiffs' Motion for

Reconsideration be denied.

2) That defendants give notice.

DATED:

May

14,

1990

BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER

THOMAS F. MCANDREWS
Attorney for Defendants,
BENNET OLAN, ESQ.
LESTER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
LINDA HORNER, ESQ.
CHARLES A. CORREIA, ESQ.

3D

APPENDIX E

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
AND JUDGEMENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
MAGYAR V. OLAN (C603609)
DATED: JANUARY 5, 1990

BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER

2850 Ocean Park Boulevard

Suite 300

Santa Monica, California 90405
Telephone: (213) 399-0900

Attorneys for Defendants
BENNET OLAN, ESQ.

LESTER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
LINDA HORNER, ESQ.
CHARLES A. CORREIA, ESQ.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

LEO MAGYAR and MAGDALENA ) Case No.C60360
MAGYAR, )
Plaintiffs, )ORDER GRANTING
)MOTION FOR
vs. ) SUMMARY
) JUDGEMENT AND
BENNET OLAN, et al., ) JUDGEMENT
)
Defendants. )
)
TO: PLAINTIFF, LEO MAGYAR, IN PROPRIA
PERSONA:

THE MOTION OF DEFENDANTS BENNET OLAN,
ESQ., LESTER FRIEDMAN, ESQ., LINDA HORNER,

ESQ., AND CHARLES A. CORREIA, ESQ. for

1E

i=

4

7

4
oP ers Foe.

mr.TarTrmeen

“~ TTA RAT
et

od

MA

DATED: JANUARY 5, 1990

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

3E

APPENDIX F

NOTICE OF RULING
WORDED AND SIGNED BY RESPONDENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
MAGYAR V. OLAN (C603609)

DATED: DECEMBER 20, 1989

BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER

2850 Ocean Park Boulevard

Suite 300

Santa Monica, California 90405
Telephone: (213) 399-0900

Attorneys for Defendants
BENNET OLAN, ESQ.
LESTER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
LINDA HORNER, ESQ.
CHARLES A. CORREIA, ESO.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Case No.C603609

LEO MAGYAR and MAGDALENA
MAGYAR,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs, )NOTICE OF RULING
)
- vs. )
)

BENNET OLAN, et al.,

Defendants. )

TO: PLAINTIFFS, LEO MAGYAR and MAGDALENA
MAGYAR, In Propria Persona:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Motion

for Summary Judgment of defendants, BENNET

OLAN, ESQ., LESTER FRIEDMAN, ESQ., LINDA
lF

HORNER, ESQ., and CHARLES CORREIA, ESQ.
came before the Honorable Eric Younger,
Judge presiding in Department 18 of the
above-entitled court located at 111 North
Hill Street, Los Angeles, California. Rick
D. Navarrette of the law firm of Baker,
Silberberg & Keener appeared on behalf of
defendants and moving parties. Plaintiff
Leo Magyar, appeared in propria persona.
After reviewing the papers submitted
in Support of the Motion, and entertaining
Oral argument, the Court granted defendants
Motion for Summary Judgment finding that
there was no triable issue of material fact
and defendants were entitled to judgment as

a matter of law. DATED: December 20, 1989
BAKER, SILBERBERG 6& KEENER

THOMAS F. MCANDREWS
Attorney for Defendants,
BENNET OLAN, ESQ.

LESTER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
LINDA HORNER, ESQ.
CHARLES A. CORREIA, ESQ.

2F

iat ile

avr rus
a x
AA > }
d me Asa a 4%
Aram Ser vs rrr , .
.¥ a & who .

(Tmr ATT
J&rorKN iN 4
" A SoC AT tr rT * ‘7 cs , .
¥, | + ( (AR NN 4 +f 4)

AY LAL ¥. J Lt frL4 YU OU y j

NAMmor ‘ahelsstal’.. . ete n.
fat > . - JRE R >< A» 4
MALL, Meer L1G! © 7

BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER

2850 Ocean Park Boulevard

Suite 300

Santa Monica, California 90405
Telephone: (213) 399-0900

Attorneys for Defendants
BENNET OLAN, ESQ.

LESTER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
LINDA HORNER, ESQ.
CHARLES A. CORREIA, ESQ.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

LEO MAGYAR and MAGDALENA Case No.C603609

MAGYAR,
Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF RULIN
BENNET OLAN, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
vs. )
)
)
)
Defendants. )

)

TO: PLAINTIFFS, LEO MAGYAR and MAGDALENA
MAGYAR, In Propria Persona:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September

13, 1989, in Department 18 of the Los

Angeles Superior Court, Central District,
1G

the Honorable Judge Younger held a Status
Conference and ruled as follows:

1) That the date of December hie
1989 has been pre-cleared with the Court's
calendar to hear defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgement;

2) That on the aforementioned
hearing date of December 11, 1989, the
Court will also hold a Status Conference.
Judge Younger indicated that if defendants'
Motion is denied, that he will, at that
time, decide whether or not to send this
matter into arbitration or give this matter
a trial date;

3) Counsel for defendants, Olan &
Friedman, was requested to give notice of

the Court's rulings.DATED: 12/20/89
BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER

JOHN C. KELLY

Attorney for Defendants,
BENNET OLAN, ESQ.

LESTER ¢cRIEDMAN, ESQ.
LINDA HORNER, ESQ.
CHARLES A. CORREIA, ESQ.

2G

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385009_2759%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.