California Court of Appeal

In plaintiffs' legal malpractice action against his former attorney arising out of his purported negligent advice in a real estate transaction, grant of attorney's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) under prior case law, the trial court correctly found plaintiffs first sustained actual injury when they obtained and obligated to pay new counsel to file a lawsuit seeking to escape the consequences of their signing the lease, and therefore sustained actual injury more than one year before the malpractice action was filed; 2) trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to reject the summary judgment motion based on the absence of headings within the Separate Statement of Material Facts; and 3) under the circumstances, plaintiffs have demonstrated neither that the trial court abused its discretion in considering the evidence submitted by defendant nor that any alleged error was prejudicial.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/21/2010
• Published 01/21/2010

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel