California Court of Appeal

In this legal malpractice action, dismissal of plaintiff’s third amended complaint without leave to amend is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff has had numerous opportunities to amend her complaint to state a cause of action for legal malpractice, but has not alleged a relevant breach of duty by defendant; and 2) the mistake regarding qualification of the sewage discharge as a discharge of hazardous material under the sublease was a court error, not an attorney error.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/29/2014
• Published 10/29/2014

Judges

• Epstein

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel