16 results for 'cat:"Civil Procedure" AND cat:"Legal Malpractice"'.
J. Fowlkes dismisses this legal malpractice lawsuit for failure to state a claim and denies the pro se plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, calling such an effort futile. The malpractice claim allegedly stems from the defendant attorney’s legal representation in an underlying criminal case. However, the plaintiff has failed to show “that he has obtained post-conviction relief,” and his amended complaint also fails to show why the case should not be dismissed.
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Fowlkes, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv2174, NOS: Mandamus & Other - Habeas Corpus, Categories: civil Procedure, Evidence, legal Malpractice
J. Cradle finds that the trial court properly dismissed a request to reopen a case after a judgement of nonsuit made by a client in a legal malpractice case against the attorneys who represented her in a divorce. The client did not demonstrate that she was reasonably prevented from filing a response prior to the judgment. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Cradle, Filed On: March 22, 2024, Case #: AC45261, Categories: civil Procedure, legal Malpractice
J. Suarez finds the lower court properly granted the law firm's motion for summary judgment on legal malpractice claims brought by the former client. Her failure to obtain an expert witness to save money was deliberate conduct that violated the rules of discovery, while her claims of trauma from being forced to relive memories of her marriage did not amount to excusable neglect. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Suarez, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: AC45952, Categories: civil Procedure, Experts, legal Malpractice
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
[Modified.] J. Hoffstadt modifies one footnote and denies a petition for rehearing with no change in judgment. The trial court properly dismissed a malpractice claim against a lawyer over his representation of a partnership. The original complaint was timely filed by a partner, but the partner lacked standing since the lawyer had represented the partnership. An amended complaint included the partnership but was filed after the statute of limitations had passed. The time-barred amended complaint did not relate back to the timely complaint because the causes of action applied only to the partnership. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hoffstadt, Filed On: October 19, 2023, Case #: B324560, Categories: civil Procedure, legal Malpractice
J. Hoffstadt finds that the trial court properly dismissed a malpractice claim against a lawyer over his representation of a partnership. The original complaint was timely filed by a partner, but the partner lacked standing since the lawyer had represented the partnership. An amended complaint included the partnership but was filed after the statute of limitations had passed. The time-barred amended complaint did not relate back to the timely complaint because the causes of action applied only to the partnership. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hoffstadt, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: B324560, Categories: civil Procedure, legal Malpractice
J. Zimmerer finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the law firms in a legal malpractice suit relating to their handling of potential product liability claims involving an allegedly faulty Inferior Vena Cava filter implanted in a patient who passed away. The estate failed to give evidence that the IVC filter in question was defective and caused injury to the decedent. "Therefore, if a lawyer's breach of a duty of care does not cause harm, no valid claim for legal malpractice exists." Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerer, Filed On: August 8, 2023, Case #: 14-22-00544-CV, Categories: civil Procedure, legal Malpractice, Contract
J. Hunter finds that the trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss a client's action against a law firm as abandoned. In this case, the last effective step in the prosecution of the action occurred on March 8, 2001, when the client served the law firm's counsel with written discovery requests. Further, the record shows that the client was unable to file the motion to compel in 2003 because he did not have the certification stating a discovery conference had been held with defendant as required by local court rule. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Hunter, Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: 55,073-CA, Categories: civil Procedure, legal Malpractice