Mejia v. Mares CA4/2, E083652

Ruben Mejia filed a legal malpractice action in pro per against several attorneys and a law firm (Juvenile Defense Panel) who represented him or his children in a child dependency proceeding.
Mejia alleged court-appointed counsel failed to submit evidence he wanted considered, deprived him of due process, and colluded with the county to ensure he lost custody.
The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrers (finding the complaint legally insufficient), with leave to amend as to most but not all defendants.
Mejia failed to file an amended complaint after receiving multiple opportunities and extensions of time.
The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to amend, and Mejia appealed.
On appeal, Mejia raised due process arguments and asserted the court should have provided greater assistance given his self-represented status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint states a viable claim for legal malpractice	Attorneys failed to submit exculpatory evidence and deprived Mejia of due process; collusion alleged	No breach of duty or causation alleged; lack of attorney-client relationship for some defendants	Complaint failed to state a cause of action; demurrers properly sustained
Due process in the handling of the case	Unfair that attorneys represented him and demurred to his complaint; due process violation	Defendants entitled to defend themselves; no due process violation in defending case	No violation; due process argument forfeited and lacking merit
Whether dismissal for failure to amend was a technicality	Court dismissed on "technicality" due to self-representation and lack of legal knowledge	Dismissal was on the merits after leave to amend; opportunity to remedy granted	Dismissal was not a technicality; authorized by statute, opportunity given to amend
Court’s obligation to assist self-represented litigant	Court should have provided clearer guidance or assistance	Self-represented parties held to same standards as attorneys	No extra duty to assist; no abuse of discretion in not providing additional guidance

Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal.5th 594 (Cal. 2018) (appellant bears burden to show trial court error)
Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., 43 Cal.App.4th 1200 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (self-represented parties are held to the same standards as attorneys)
Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc., 89 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (dismissal for failure to amend reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Bistawros v. Greenberg, 189 Cal.App.3d 189 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (no greater consideration for self-represented litigants)
Lombardi v. Citizens Nat. Trust etc. Bank, 137 Cal.App.2d 206 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955) (no obligation for court to assist self-represented litigants)