Opinion
Page 704a
158 Cal.App.4th 704a __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ ROBERT NIELSEN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PAUL A. BECK et al., Defendants and Respondents. B195402 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Third Division January 7, 2008Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC339322
THE COURT:It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 10, 2007, (157 Cal.App.4th 1041;___Cal.Rptr.3d___) be modified as follows, and petition for rehearing is DENIED:
On page 14 [157 Cal.App.4th 1054, advance report, 4th full par.], the fourth full paragraph, starting with "Beck's representation in the bankruptcy case and Beck's representation in the" and ending on page 15 with “detainer action involved the same specific subject matter as the bankruptcy action.” is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:
“Beck’s representation in the bankruptcy case and Beck’s representation in the unlawful detainer proceedings can be seen to be intertwined and related, having overlapping objectives and purposes. The legal representation could be seen to have arisen from the same event. The advice given by Beck in the bankruptcy case resulted in the unlawful detainer proceeding. Beck advised the Nielsens and PrimePapers to stop paying ProLogis. (Lockley, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 875 [representation relating to workers’ compensation claim and with regard to settlement agreement against employer involved same subject matter as they related to the same objective]; Gold v. Weissman (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1195 [8 Cal.Rptr.3d 480] [same subject matter where representation to file medical malpractice case continued with attorney’s agreement to file complaint with Board of Medical Quality Assurance as both arose from the same event and had a shared, common purpose, even though involved different forums and different types of relief]; Baright v. Willis (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 303 [198 Cal.Rptr. 510] [retaining attorney to sue for damages as a result of workplace injury would include third party lawsuit as well as workers’ compensation case]; contra, Panattoni v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1092 [250 Cal.Rptr. 390].) Thus, even though the bankruptcy case was in a different forum than the unlawful detainer proceedings and involved different parties, from the above stated facts, a trier of fact could
Page 704b
conclude that the representation of the Nielsens with regard to the unlawful detainer action involved the same specific subject matter as the bankruptcy action."
There is no change in the judgment.