What is attorney malpractice?

Useful Rulings on Professional Negligence – Attorney Malpractice

Recent Rulings on Professional Negligence – Attorney Malpractice

FENGXIA HUAI VS CALIFORNIA INVESTMENT REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, ET AL.

On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against CIRC, Hawaii LP, Law Offices of Deacon Zhang, PC (“Zhang PC”), Daqin Zhang aka Deacon Zhang aka Daqin Deacon Zhang (“Zhang”), Fang, Hu and Does 1-50 for: Intentional Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Violation of Corporations Code § 25401 Legal Malpractice A Case Management Conference is set for December 1, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TINA YAN VS. STEVEN R. RHOADS

Despite Defendant’s claims that his MTD did not address the merits of Plaintiff’s professional negligence and legal malpractice causes of action, the following language from the MTD itself contradicts this statement: “There is no actual dispute whether Rhoads can be held liable for giving negligent advice because . , . his advice was correct,” (MPA MTD 13.3: 20-211) The very issue of negligent advice lies at the center of Plaintiff’s legal malpractice action before this court, The motion goes on to discuss

  • Hearing

MEDS DIRECT RX OF NY LLC ET AL VS NOAH JUSSIM ET AL

As to Hinshaw, that leaves the second cause of action for legal malpractice, sixth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, and eighth cause of action for breach of contract. As to Jussim, that leaves the second cause of action for legal malpractice, fourth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, sixth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, eighth cause of action for breach of contract, and tenth cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment.

  • Hearing

CAROL ANN HOWARD AS TRUSTEE OF THE ANDREW MILLS TRUST VS ALBENCE & ASSOCIATES APC

Accordingly, Plaintiff's cause of action for legal malpractice fails. Furthermore, Plaintiff's legal malpractice claim is subject to a one-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 340.6(a).) The conduct complained of occurred in 2014-2015. Defendants' representation of Mr. Mills ended no later than October 20, 2016. (Def. Sep. Stmt. ¶ 30.) Thus, the statute of limitations expired on October 20, 2017.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CITY NATIONAL BANK, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION VS ALINA YALANSKA, IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BARRY K. ROTHMAN, ET AL.

Yalanksi pursued a legitimate strategy of waiting for the statute of limitations on legal malpractice claims to expire before bringing collections actions on the Firm’s A/R. This is a common practice by attorneys to limit claims of malpractice liability and conserve resources. Smith Decl. ¶5; Belsome Decl. ¶¶ 13-14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 34, 47-49.

  • Hearing

ALFRED SOLORIA VS RICHARD J ROSIAK ET AL

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint arising from alleged negligence in selling Plaintiff’s home, alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; and (2) legal malpractice. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was sued by the prospective home buyer in a legal action (the “Underlying Action”). The complaint seeks damages for legal fees and expenses incurred by Plaintiff in defending himself in the Underlying Action.

  • Hearing

PEGGYE MARTIN ET AL VS IBIERE SECK ET AL

The FAC alleges causes of action for constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence- legal malpractice, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Respondents the Cochran Firm (now “Defendant”) filed an answer to the FAC on November 20, 2019, asserting thirty-four (34) affirmative defenses. On November 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal, indicating that Delray Bradley would no longer participate in this action.

  • Hearing

NUTRIBULLET, LLC, ET AL. VS ACKER & WHIPPLE

Since both causes of action arise from defendant’s alleged legal malpractice while representing NutriBullet, the one-year statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc. §340.6) applies. Defendant argues the statute expired in May 2019 at the latest. The complaint alleges the news segment based on the allegedly wrongfully produced material aired in May 2018. FAC pgs. 4-5. Absent tolling, defendant’s malpractice and any resulting injury occurred by May 2018, which triggers the one-year period of §340.6.

  • Hearing

ERIK COVARRUBIAS VS ARBON EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

In Norton, the plaintiffs sued the defendant for legal malpractice in connection with the settlement of their suit for property damage against the City of Palos Verdes. The defendant sought discovery of all documents containing terms and conditions of the plaintiffs’ recovery from their own insurer for the same property damage that was the subject of the suit against the City. The plaintiffs refused to provide the documents, and the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to compel.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MARYAM GHOLAMIRAD VS. BELLA VISTA APARTMENTS

In other words, plaintiff did not allege that he lied (plaintiff’s misconduct); plaintiff alleged only that defendant gave him faulty advice (legal malpractice). The court rejected this argument. Reading the complaints together, Blain has pled that he was advised to lie at his deposition and that he followed that advice resulting in harm to his interests. On this reading Blain alleges that he committed serious misconduct which was the cause of his injuries.

  • Hearing

VOGT V. PORTER

Professional Negligence “In civil malpractice cases, the elements of a cause of action for professional negligence are: ‘(1) the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence and diligence as members of the profession commonly possess; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage. [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (Wiley v. County of San Diego (1998) 19 Cal.4th 532, 536.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MEDS DIRECT RX OF NY LLC ET AL VS NOAH JUSSIM ET AL

That leaves the second cause of action for legal malpractice, sixth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, and eighth cause of action for breach of contract. On March 18, 2020, Hinshaw filed this motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the action is barred by the statute of limitations and that Plaintiffs lack evidence that Hinshaw caused their damages based on any act or omission that occurred before September 16, 2015.

  • Hearing

KATHY LIGHTFOOT VS KEN MIFFLIN, ET AL.

The complaint alleges a single cause of action for legal malpractice. Complaint The Complaint alleges as follows: In March of 2016, Plaintiff retained Defendants to represent her in a personal injury matter involving a slip and fall against McDonald’s restaurant that occurred on March 22, 2016. (Complaint ¶ 8.) Defendants accepted this employment and agreed to represent Plaintiff. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PETER J. PARKER VS ABBAS HADJIAN

Defendant cites to Plaintiff’s response to the interrogatory asking Plaintiff to set forth all facts supporting the legal malpractice cause of action. (UMF 36.) In response, Plaintiff stated the premarital agreement “failed to effectuate Plaintiff’s objective,” and Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff about how to maintain separate property to prevent it from being characterized as community property.

  • Hearing

DAVID Y NAKATSU VS YUSI LIAO

In opposition, Liao argues that the gravamen of her Cross-Complaint is not for legal malpractice. Liao does not reference professional misconduct in her breach of contract cause of action. Rather, she seeks a refund of unearned fees, as Nakatsu did not provide her any legal services. There is a fee dispute, which is different than legal malpractice, as evidenced by the parties’ arbitration and retainer agreement. (Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

XIAOFAN SUN VS HRC FERTILITY CLINIC, ET AL.

In McDaniel, the attorney refused to work on his client's case unless she gave him sexual favors, and so in the client's subsequent action for legal malpractice, there was a direct and sufficient connection between the wrongful conduct and the parties' professional relationship. (Smith, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 271-72.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOYCELYN DI PALMA VS TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA INC ET AL

In a typical professional negligence case against a litigation attorney, a determination of the merits of the underlying lawsuit must be made in order to adjudicate the elements of causation and damages. (Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 336, 357 [89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 710] (Blanks).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GARCIA VS GARCIA

Defendants made misrepresentations regarding this scheme in order to conceal their wrongdoing. 6th COA: LEGAL MALPRACTICE This Demurrer is overruled because the demurring Defendants are not parties to this cause of action. _____ Defendants' Motion (ROA # 25) to strike portions of Plaintiff's FAC, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court strikes the phrase "attorney fees" from paragraph 27 (FAC at page 10, line 6). The remainder of this Motion is DENIED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

VOKSHORI LAW GROUP, APLC, ET AL. VS JIMMY EISELSTEIN, ET AL.

Plaintiffs allege that, thereafter, Defendant Dobson encouraged the Eiselsteins to sue Plaintiffs for legal malpractice, under the theory that Plaintiffs had negligently failed to alert the Eiselsteins to the tender issue. Ultimately, this legal malpractice action concluded in Plaintiffs favor. Plaintiffs contend that it was clear at the time of filing that there was no valid legal malpractice cause of action against them. As such, the filing constituted a malicious prosecution. Discussion 1.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VOKSHORI LAW GROUP, APLC, ET AL. VS JIMMY EISELSTEIN, ET AL.

Plaintiffs allege that, thereafter, Defendant Dobson encouraged the Eiselsteins to sue Plaintiffs for legal malpractice, under the theory that Plaintiffs had negligently failed to alert the Eiselsteins to the tender issue. Ultimately, this legal malpractice action concluded in Plaintiffs favor. Plaintiffs contend that it was clear at the time of filing that there was no valid legal malpractice cause of action against them. As such, the filing constituted a malicious prosecution. Discussion 1.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GARCIA VS GARCIA

Defendants made misrepresentations regarding this scheme in order to conceal their wrongdoing. 6th COA: LEGAL MALPRACTICE This Demurrer is overruled because the demurring Defendants are not parties to this cause of action. _____ Defendants' Motion (ROA # 25) to strike portions of Plaintiff's FAC, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court strikes the phrase "attorney fees" from paragraph 27 (FAC at page 10, line 6). The remainder of this Motion is DENIED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

AURA IGLESIAS VS RONALD KEITH ZIFF ET AL

In the alternative, Defendants move for summary adjudication as to the 2nd (legal malpractice) cause of action. Requests for Judicial Notice Defendants’ 8/17/20 request for judicial notice is granted.

  • Hearing

FINGAL, FAHRNEY & CLARK LLP VS. DOYLE

As legal malpractice involves negligent conduct, causation for legal malpractice is analyzed differently than causation for the intentional torts of fraudulent concealment and intentional breach of fiduciary duty. (Knutson v. Foster (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1075, 1091.) Causation for fraud or an intentional breach of fiduciary duty is determined using the substantial factor test. (Id. at pp. 1091-1094.) The but for causation test is used for claims of breach of fiduciary duty arising from negligent conduct.

  • Hearing

MARLENE LEIVA VS NIRUP REDDY, ET AL.

On August 20, 2020, Nirup Reddy and Bortay Dehnadi filed a cross-complaint against Lou Bermudez and Marlene Leiva for (1), (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3), (4) fraud, (5) professional negligence, (6) negligence, (7) conversion, (8) wrongful eviction, (9) professional negligence (legal malpractice), (10) violation of Bus. and Prof. Code 6148, and (11) breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHRISTINA GARCIA VS JESSE E. FRENCH, ESQ.,, ET AL.

DAN, ESQ.’S MOTION OF TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF CHRISTINA GARCIA’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Background Plaintiff Christina Garcia (“Garcia”) filed this action for legal malpractice on November 2, 2018. The operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was filed on August 19, 2020 and asserts causes of action for (1) legal malpractice and (2) breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants are all attorneys associated with the law firm Cheong, Denove, Rowell & Bennett (“CDRB”).

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 70     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.