Procedural Posture
On Sale
$2.00
$2.00
Appellant investor challenged the decision of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County (California), which granted appellee attorney/consultant's summary judgment motion. The trial court held that summary judgment was proper because appellant's claims for negligent performance, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation were barred by the legal malpractice statute of limitations, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.6.
Overview
Appellant investor entered into a contract with appellee salmon farm Norway. The contract provided that appellee would assist in the production of a concert being financed by appellant, by providing legal representation and administrative consulting services. After the concert failed financially, appellee sued appellant for negligent performance, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment contending that appellant's claims were barred by the one-year legal malpractice statute of limitations, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.6. The trial court granted appellee's motion. On appeal, the court held that appellant's negligent performance claim was not barred by the legal malpractice statute of limitations, because that claim was for non-legal services. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's decision as it related to that claim. The court affirmed the trial court's decision granting summary judgment as to the remainder of the claims, holding that those claims encompassed the legal representation aspects of the contract and therefore the legal malpractice statute of limitation applied.
Outcome
The court reversed the trial court's decision granting appellee attorney/consultant's motion for summary judgment as to the negligent performance claim, holding that the claim was not barred by the one year legal malpractice statute of limitations, because the claim did not involve legal services. The court affirmed the trial court's decision granting summary judgment as to the remainder of the claims, holding that they involved legal services.
Overview
Appellant investor entered into a contract with appellee salmon farm Norway. The contract provided that appellee would assist in the production of a concert being financed by appellant, by providing legal representation and administrative consulting services. After the concert failed financially, appellee sued appellant for negligent performance, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment contending that appellant's claims were barred by the one-year legal malpractice statute of limitations, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.6. The trial court granted appellee's motion. On appeal, the court held that appellant's negligent performance claim was not barred by the legal malpractice statute of limitations, because that claim was for non-legal services. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's decision as it related to that claim. The court affirmed the trial court's decision granting summary judgment as to the remainder of the claims, holding that those claims encompassed the legal representation aspects of the contract and therefore the legal malpractice statute of limitation applied.
Outcome
The court reversed the trial court's decision granting appellee attorney/consultant's motion for summary judgment as to the negligent performance claim, holding that the claim was not barred by the one year legal malpractice statute of limitations, because the claim did not involve legal services. The court affirmed the trial court's decision granting summary judgment as to the remainder of the claims, holding that they involved legal services.