Procedural Posture

Appellant client sued respondents, the lawyers, for legal malpractice. The client's motion to amend his complaint was denied. The lawyers filed two motions for summary judgment. The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California, granted judgment in favor of the lawyers. The client appealed.

 

Overview: emotional distress california

The client was a dental surgeon and business investor. He and a company agreed to form a limited partnership to develop a mall. The lawyers were retained to create a limited partnership and to provide legal services in connection to the project. The client sued the lawyers, alleging that the lawyers were negligent in their representation. He also alleged breach of fiduciary duty and breach of oral contract. The lawyers were granted summary judgment in part because of the expiration of the statute of limitations. On review, the court of appeals held that: (1) the statute of limitations began to run when the client sustained the first actual injury stemming from the lawyers' malpractice, even though other injuries may have occurred later; (2) the creation of an enforceable personal obligation that would have been avoided by formation of the partnership constituted actual injury; and (3) the trial court's denial of the client's motion to amend his complaint did not constitute prejudicial error.

 

Outcome

The judgment was affirmed.