What is attorney malpractice?

Useful Rulings on Professional Negligence – Attorney Malpractice

Recent Rulings on Professional Negligence – Attorney Malpractice

LOREN NAUTA V. SUSAN MURPHY

The complaint sets forth causes of action for breach of contract and legal malpractice and arises out of Murphy’s representation of Nauta in connection with a pending foreclosure. On October 15, 2019, Murphy responded by filing a Motion for Change of Venue, which the Court granted on December 18, 2019. Nauta did not appear at the hearing. At the Court’s direction, Murphy mailed Nauta a Notice of Ruling that same day. Murphy then forwarded to Nauta a signed Order After Hearing on January 16, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

JEAN NDJONGO VS HENRY M. WILLIS, ET AL.

Factual Background This is an action for legal malpractice. The Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleges as follows. Plaintiff Jean Ndjongo (“Ndjongo”) was placed on administrative leave by his employer, City of Los Angeles, Department of Airports, in June 2011. He the had a medical leave for several surgeries. (TAC at ¶ 9.) Ndjongo’s employer retaliated against him, and Ndjongo’s union appointed Defendant Henry Willis (“Willis”) to represent him in the dispute with the employer. (TAC at ¶ 10.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

TIFFANIE CALDWELL, ET AL. VS SAMAN BEHNAM, ET AL.

While emotional distress damages are not recoverable in legal malpractice claims, there are exceptions to this rule when there is an “intentional or affirmative wrongdoing by the defendant.” (Holliday v. Jones (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 102, 114.) Here, plaintiffs argue defendants acted negligently and breached various duties; however, they failed to allege intentional conduct or bad faith in the FAC. Without more, Plaintiffs prayer for emotional distress damages must fail.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

MCMULLIN VS. BARRY A ROSS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Defendants have maintained from the outset of this litigation that this action is barred by California’s legal malpractice statute of due to Plaintiffs having inquiry notice of Defendants’ alleged legal malpractice for over one (1) year prior to April 26, 2018, when they filed the instant action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ZULA TUCKER LIVING TRUST VS STANLEY D. BOWMAN; ET AL

Bowman for (1) legal malpractice, (2) professional negligence, and (3) fraud. On April 11, 2018, Stanley D. Bowman filed a cross-complaint Zula Tucker Living Trust and Fred Tucker, as trustee and individually. On May 14, 2018, Tucker (self-represented) filed an answer to the cross-complaint on behalf of the trust only. On January 31, 2020, the court noted that on several occasions, the court had advised Tucker to obtain an attorney.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

ZULA TUCKER LIVING TRUST VS STANLEY D. BOWMAN; ET AL

Bowman for (1) legal malpractice, (2) professional negligence, and (3) fraud. On April 11, 2018, Stanley D. Bowman filed a cross-complaint Zula Tucker Living Trust and Fred Tucker, as trustee and individually. On May 14, 2018, Tucker (self-represented) filed an answer to the cross-complaint on behalf of the trust only. On January 31, 2020, the court noted that on several occasions, the court had advised Tucker to obtain an attorney.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

AI-AJAH PARKER VS LIBERTY LAW GROUP

Second and Third Causes of Action – Intentional Tort & Legal Malpractice Plaintiff’s form Complaint also checks off the boxes alleging intentional tort and legal malpractice causes of action. (Compl., ¶ 10.) However, as Plaintiff has not included an attachment for each of these as required, the Court finds she has not alleged any facts in support of these causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NELLIE TADDI VS JAMES P SEGAL GUTIERREZ ET AL

Segal-Gutierrez (collectively, “Defendants”) committed legal malpractice in connection with her personal injury lawsuit. On August 15, 2019, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice after Plaintiff failed to submit any trial documents, failed to appear at the final status conference on July 24, 2019, and failed to appear for an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff moved to set aside the dismissal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

INTELLIGENT SCM LLC ET AL VS RUSSELL W ROTEN ET AL

The 4AC asserts causes of action against the Firm Defendants for constructive fraud/breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, negligence, fraud, tort of another, intentional interference with contractual relationship, negligent interference with contractual relationship, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent supervision, and conversion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY VS STEPHEN ACKER, ET AL.

The operative First Amended Complaint asserts a single cause of action for legal malpractice arising out of Defendants alleged failure to communicate with Houston Casualty Company, an excess insurer, regarding significant case events and settlement offers. The case is currently pending in Department S27 of the Governor George Deukmejian courthouse in the South District of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

MICHAEL A NICHOLS ET AL VS GERAGOS & GERAGOS ET AL

LEGAL MALPRACTICE & BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY “The failure to provide competent representation in a civil or criminal case may be the basis for civil liability under a theory of professional negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

KEITH A. KELLY VS CENTURY LAW GROUP, A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

The scope of the language encompasses Plaintiff’s single cause of action for legal malpractice against Defendants, all of whom are alleged to be part of the Century Law Group Law (Offices of Edward Lear). Accordingly, an agreement exists between Plaintiff and Defendants to arbitrate this dispute. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that the arbitration agreement should not be enforced.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

BROOKE KNAPP VS LAWRENCE A. GINSBERG, ET AL.

This is a “settle-and-sue” legal malpractice situation. “In the legal malpractice context, the elements of causation and damage are particularly closely linked.” (Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley LLP v. Superior Court (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 591 [40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 446].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

CARLOS DANIEL VILLAMOR VS. SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

See Lilienthal (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th at 1854-55 (one of two unrelated acts of legal malpractice that were alleged in a single cause of action could be summarily adjudicated); Mathieu v. Norrell Corporation (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1188-89 (even though a retaliation and hostile work environment harassment claim were pled in the same cause of action, each such claim could independently be the subject of a summary adjudication motion); Edward Fineman Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KAREN VELIE V. CHARLES TENBORG, CEC ECO SOLUTIONS, INC.

These portions of the brief raise an argument about Velie’s legal malpractice action that was not addressed in the moving papers. The Court notes, however, that it sustained Velie’s objections to the evidence submitted in support of this argument, and striking these portions does not change the tentative ruling on the Anti-SLAPP above. The Court declines to strike page 7:21-8:16. This argument regarding intrinsic fraud was raised in Defendants’ moving papers.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

LINDA SCHERMER, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARITAL TRUST UNDER THE SCHERMER FAMILY TRUST, ET AL. VS HFL LAW GROUP, APC, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed a complaint arising from alleged legal malpractice. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) legal malpractice; and (2) breach of contract—written. On November 21, 2019, pursuant to the Court’s minute order, the Court found this action (the “Secondary Case”) and case number BC716368 were related and indicated that BC716368 was the lead case[1] (the “Lead Case”).

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

STEVEN W. KEREKES, AN INDIVIDUAL VS DANIEL C. FERGUSON, AS TRUSTEE OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED FERGUSON TRUST AND AS EXECUTOR, ET AL.

Disputes concerning any of Attorney’ legal services or advice to Client, including any claim(s) of legal malpractice or other claim(s) of professional negligence. IN AGREEING TO SUBMIT ANY CLAIM(S) AGAINST ATTORNEY TO BINDING ARBITRATION, CLIENT UNDERSTANDS THAT SHE IS GIVING UP CLIENT’S RIGHTS TO DISCOVERY AND TO A COURT OR JURY TRIAL. (Kerekes Decl., Exh. A.) The first cause of action arises out an alleged failure to pay attorneys fees owed under the agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

CESARE VIETINA VS ALAN NOVODOR, ET AL.

In this action, Plaintiff asserts five causes of action derivatively and directly: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against Novodor, (2) legal malpractice against Novodor, (3) fraudulent concealment against Novodor, (4) breach of fiduciary duty against Gianni, and (5) conversion against Defendants. Plaintiff’s claims are premised on misconduct in the establishment of Madeo, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

MEIGHAN E.E. HOWARD, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MEIGHAN HOWARD IRREVOCABLE GIFT TRUST NO. 1, ET AL. VS M. NEIL SOLARZ, ET AL.

[Citations] Where the injury is suffered by reason of an attorney’s professional negligence, the gravamen of the claim is legal malpractice, regardless of whether it is pled in tort or contract. [Citations]” (Kracht v. Perrin (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1019, 1022.) (See Stoll v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

SUNSET HILLS CAR WASH INC VS GENERAL BARRICADE LLC

Ryan is correct that Courts have held that negligent misrepresentation in the context of legal malpractice is bound by the 1-year statute of limitations. (Quintilliani v. Mannerino, supra, (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th at 69.) However, Cross-Complainants are/were not Ryan’s client, and “liability for legal malpractice extends only to clients and to those identified as third party beneficiaries of the professional employment agreement.” (B.L.M. v. Sabo & Deitsch (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 823, 839.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TERI STEELMAN, ET AL. VS MARVIN S. SHEBBY, A LAW CORPORATION, ET AL.

Shebby, an individual STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: This is a legal malpractice action. Plaintiffs allege that they did not recover damages that they were entitled to in Steelman v. Charles Alexander, M.D. (BC582568) as a result of Defendants’ malpractice in representing them in that underlying medical malpractice action. Plaintiffs move for leave to file a third amended complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

ELVIA A ESPINOZA VS LAX IN FLITE SERVICES LLC

Shebby, an individual STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: This is a legal malpractice action. Plaintiffs allege that they did not recover damages that they were entitled to in Steelman v. Charles Alexander, M.D. (BC582568) as a result of Defendants’ malpractice in representing them in that underlying medical malpractice action. Plaintiffs move for leave to file a third amended complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FINANCIAL PACIFIC VS. ARCHER NORRIS

As to number (1), lay witnesses in medical and legal malpractice cases are often asked in depositions whether they are critical of the services provided. The general rule is that expert testimony is required to prove professional negligence. It should generally be true that such testimony is necessary to refute negligence as well, particularly where the witness who expresses no complaints about the services is an employee of a corporate client. Such clients go to attorneys to discover the malpractice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

JENSEN V. VAN NOORD

The requests merely seek all financial documents that plaintiff contends supports his claim he was damaged by alleged legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress as alleged in the complaint. (See Complaint, paragraphs 19, 26, 34, and 42.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

LORRAINE L4 GRACE, ET AL VS. HUSSEIN SAFFOURI, ET AL

Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113, there is no exception to mediation confidentiality even where the evidence is needed to substantiate or defend a claim for legal malpractice, (See Carrel v, Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113, 128 [, . .

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 64     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.