LAWYERS

  • This forum is empty.
    • Forum
    • Topics
    • Posts
    • Freshness
    • Lisa Marie MacCarley#164458.
      License Status: Active Address: 700 N Brand Blvd, Ste 240, Glendale, CA 91203-3271 County: Los Angeles County Phone Number: (818) 241-5800 Fax Number: (818) 241-5895 Email: lisamaccarley@gmail.com Law School: Loyola Law School; Los Angeles CA License Status, Disciplinary and Administrative History Below you will find all changes of license status due to both non-disciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary actions. Date License Status Discipline Administrative Action Present Active 6/11/1993 Admitted to The State Bar of California Note it appears Lisa Marie MacCarley uses several different addresses Law Officer of Lisa MacCarley 3436 N. Verdugo Road #100 Glendale, CA 91208 https://veriforia.com/view/Lisa-Maccarley-FBDRCOED REVIEWS https://www.yelp.com/biz/maccarley-lisa-attorney-at-law-glendale MacCarley Lisa-Attorney At Law - Glendale CA DOCUMENTS WHERE THE ABOVE ATTORNEY IS INVOLVED OR MENTIONED CONSERVATORSHIP ABUSE https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5749822/37/ricky-ritch-v-aviva-bobb/ https://courtvictim.com/abusers/corrupt-lawyers/california/los-angeles/questionable-lisa-maccarley/lisa-marie-maccarley-esq-gc039459-ramirez-v-castaneda-attys-letters-pratt-maccarley/ BRITNEY SPEARS, MACCARLEY portrays herself as an advocate and activist https://exhale.breatheheavy.com/forums/topic/808989-new-filing-today-lisa-maccarley-files-amicus-brief-in-support-of-britneys-objection-to-payment-of-legal-fees-as-well-as-opposition-to-motion-to-compel-her-deposition/page/3/ JANICE CARTER https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la23-janice-carter-vs-attorney-lisa-maccarley-777727

      Breach of Contract CONSERVATORSHIP OF LEMUS JAMES ALFRED https://trellis.law/case/ec052482/lisa-maccarley-vs-gary-s-gurrola https://trellis.law/cases/%22Gurrola%20Gary%20S.%22?state=ca Lemus Bonnie F

      Breach of Contract CONSERVATORSHIP OF GURROLA GARY S. https://trellis.law/cases/%22Gurrola%20Gary%20S.%22?state=ca HISTORY OF CONSERVATORSHIPS https://trellis.law/cases/%22Maccarley%20Lisa%22?state=ca Conservatorships Zillgitt, Evelyn Ruth - Trust  Judge Candace Joan Beason      

      Tentative Rulings

      Case Number: *******5244 Hearing Date: November 4, 2022 Dept: 17 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 17 TENTATIVE RULING JANICE CARTER vs.LISA MACCARLEY Case No.:*******5244 Hearing Date: August 19, 2022 Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITH 10 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. On 12/13/2021, Plaintiff Janice Carter (Plaintiff) filed suit against Lisa MacCarley (Defendant). On 5/27/2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) alleging professional negligence. Now, Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Factual Background This action arises out of Defendant’s legal representation of Plaintiff during Plaintiff’s father’s probate (Probate Case). Discussion Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s FAC still fails to allege facts which could show that her claim for professional negligence is not time-barred. CCP section 340.6 provides: An action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services shall be commenced within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission, or four years from the date of the wrongful act or omission, whichever occurs first. In its 5/20/2022 Ruling, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer, with 10 days leave to amend. This was based on the fact that, by Plaintiff’s own admission, she alleged discovered the alleged wrongful conduct during the end of October 2020 when she made an appointment with Defendant, and learned that the case had been settled without her permission. Given that this case was filed on 12/13/2021, over a year after the discovery, Plaintiff’s Complaint appeared time-barred on its face. In Plaintiff’s FAC, she still alleges that the underlying Probate case settled on 12/12/2019, and that she was extremely disturbed when she discovered this because Defendant had not given her notice. Plaintiff alleges that she was finally able to secure an appointment with Defendant to discuss this in October 2020, and that she learned in this appointment that the Probate Case had, in fact, been settled. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant then offered to file a partition action, but Plaintiff rejected the offer. However, Plaintiff’s FAC now alleges that she did not discover Defendant’s wrongdoing until she received the transcript records of the Probate settlement hearing, mailed on 4/15/2021. Plaintiff alleges that it was then that she learned that it was Defendant who had settled the case, as opposed to the Probate Judge. In other words, after the October 2020 meeting, Plaintiff was “under the impression from [Defendant] that it was the Judge who had settled the Probate Court case.” When she read the transcripts, however, she allegedly learned that Defendant had been the one to alert the judge to settlement. While a close call, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s new allegations could show that she did not discover the true nature of Defendant’s alleged misconduct until she received the transcript records sometime after 4/15/2021. More specifically, accepted as true at the pleading stage, Plaintiff’s allegations could show that Plaintiff did not understand until after April 2021 that the settlement was the result of Defendant’s actions, rather than the Probate Judge’s. As such, Plaintiff’s FAC does not appear time-barred on its face. While it may be that Defendant explained the circumstances of the settlement in October 2020, or Plaintiff should have actually discovered the wrongful conduct then, such that the statute of limitations began to run, this is a factual determination not properly made at this stage. However, the Court still finds Plaintiff’s claim to be insufficient to state a claim. This is because Plaintiff’s FAC does not include any allegations of damage that resulted from the alleged negligence. Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained, with 10 days leave to amend. It is so ordered. Dated: August , 2022 Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated. Case Number: *******5244 Hearing Date: August 19, 2022 Dept: 17 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 17 TENTATIVE RULING JANICE CARTER vs. LISA MACCARLEY Case No.:*******5244 Hearing Date: August 19, 2022 Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITH 10 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. On 12/13/2021, Plaintiff Janice Carter (Plaintiff) filed suit against Lisa MacCarley (Defendant). On 5/27/2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) alleging professional negligence. Now, Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Factual Background This action arises out of Defendant’s legal representation of Plaintiff during Plaintiff’s father’s probate (Probate Case). Discussion Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s FAC still fails to allege facts which could show that her claim for professional negligence is not time-barred. CCP section 340.6 provides: An action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services shall be commenced within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission, or four years from the date of the wrongful act or omission, whichever occurs first. In its 5/20/2022 Ruling, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer, with 10 days leave to amend. This was based on the fact that, by Plaintiff’s own admission, she alleged she discovered the alleged wrongful conduct during the end of October 2020 when she made an appointment with Defendant, and learned that the case had been settled without her permission. Given that this case was filed on 12/13/2021, over a year after the discovery, Plaintiff’s Complaint appeared time-barred on its face. In Plaintiff’s FAC, she still alleges that the underlying Probate case settled on 12/12/2019, and that she was extremely disturbed when she discovered this because Defendant had not given her notice. Plaintiff alleges that she was finally able to secure an appointment with Defendant to discuss this in October 2020, and that she learned in this appointment that the Probate Case had, in fact, been settled. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant then offered to file a partition action, but Plaintiff rejected the offer. However, Plaintiff’s FAC now alleges that she did not discover Defendant’s wrongdoing until she received the transcript records of the Probate settlement hearing, mailed on 4/15/2021. Plaintiff alleges that it was then that she learned that it was Defendant who had settled the case, as opposed to the Probate Judge. In other words, after the October 2020 meeting, Plaintiff was “under the impression from [Defendant] that it was the Judge who had settled the Probate Court case.” When she read the transcripts, however, she allegedly learned that Defendant had been the one to alert the judge to settlement. While a close call, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s new allegations could show that she did not discover the true nature of Defendant’s alleged misconduct until she received the transcript records sometime after 4/15/2021. More specifically, accepted as true at the pleading stage, Plaintiff’s allegations could show that Plaintiff did not understand until after April 2021 that the settlement was the result of Defendant’s actions, rather than the Probate Judge’s. As such, Plaintiff’s FAC does not appear time-barred on its face. While it may be that Defendant explained the circumstances of the settlement in October 2020, or Plaintiff should have actually discovered the wrongful conduct then, such that the statute of limitations began to run, this is a factual determination not properly made at this stage. However, the Court still finds Plaintiff’s claim to be insufficient to state a claim. This is because Plaintiff’s FAC does not include any allegations of damage that resulted from the alleged negligence. Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained, with 10 days leave to amend. It is so ordered. Dated: August , 2022 Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated. Case Number: *******5244 Hearing Date: May 20, 2022 Dept: 17 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 17 TENTATIVE RULING JANICE CARTER vs. LISA MACCARLEY Case No.:*******5244 Hearing Date: May 20, 2022 Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITH 10 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. On 12/13/2021, Plaintiff Janice Carter (Plaintiff) filed suit against Lisa MacCarley (Defendant) alleging professional negligence. Now, Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Factual Background This action arises out of Defendant’s legal representation of Plaintiff during Plaintiff’s father’s probate. Discussion Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for professional negligence because the claim is time-barred. CCP section 340.6 provides: An action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services shall be commenced within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission, or four years from the date of the wrongful act or omission, whichever occurs first. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently represented her by settling the case without her permission. However, Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he way I found out that the Probate Court case had been settled, during the end of October 2020, I got in context with Lisa MacCarley law firm office and made an appointment with her. She informed me that the Probate Court case had been settled and that the Judge never specified a percentage of the estate. So I said to her well aren’t you the attorney, and she told me she’s sorry there nothing [sic] that she can possible do. And ask me to give her $1,000 dollars so that she can file a civil petition and petition the Court to force the sale of the estate. But I knew that it was not the right thing to do and I never gave her $1,000 dollars….” (Complaint, p. 1-2.) Accordingly, by Plaintiff’s own admission, she discovered the alleged wrongful conduct during the end of October 2020 when she made an appointment with Defendant, and learned that the case had been settled without her permission. Given that this case was filed on 12/13/2021, over a year after the discovery, Plaintiff’s Complaint appears time-barred on its face. Plaintiff will be provided an additional opportunity to allege facts which could show her Complaint is not time-barred. However, in doing so, Plaintiff is reminded that she may not run afoul of the sham-pleadings doctrine. (See Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408, 425, noting that “[u]nder the sham pleading doctrine, plaintiffs are precluded from amending complaints to omit harmful allegations, without explanation, from previous complaints to avoid attacks raised in demurrers or motions for summary judgment.) Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained, with 10 days leave to amend. It is so ordered. Dated: May , 2022 Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court
    • 0
    • 0
    • No Topics

Comments are closed.

  • JOIN THE COURT VICTIM ONLY COMMUNITY

    Uglyjudge
    The Community for court Victims
    Elderly Lives matter
    Campaign
    Clean Courts Org
    Jail 4 Judges