Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Breach of Contract Case

June 7, 2024

A motion for summary judgment was granted in San Diego County Superior Court in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract case. Robert M. Scherk and Lisa M. Allen of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented the defendants.

The plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 17, 2022 which alleged three causes of against the defendants: 1) Negligence (Legal Malpractice); 2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and 3) Breach of Contract. The defendants represented the plaintiffs in a creditor action in Probate Court. The plaintiffs contended that a friend who had died, Dr. Habib, had promised to leave them certain properties, make a trust naming them as beneficiaries, and pay them money to care for Dr. Habib, among other things.

The plaintiff contends that defendants committed legal malpractice by: (a) failing to file any creditor claims for the plaintiffs despite working with the plaintiffs collecting detailed information from them; (b) missing the 120-day Statute of Limitation filing date deadline which is required from creditors to submit timely claims; and (c) incorrectly advising the plaintiffs that their deadline to file claims in the probate court was one year from the date of death of the Decedent. The defendants argued that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Further, the plaintiff could not prove the necessary elements of causation and damages.

The court agreed there were multiple different dates which reflect “actual injury” to the plaintiff, each many years before the Complaint was filed, and even assuming, that the statute of limitations was tolled to October 14, 2021, the plaintiff, by her own admission, still failed to file this action within the one (1) year timeline, as this action was not filed until October 17, 2022, three (3) days after the statutory deadline.

The Court agreed that “In the legal malpractice context, the elements of causation and damage are particularly closely linked. The plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that but for the attorney’s negligent acts of omissions, she would have obtained a more favorable judgment or settlement in the action which the malpractice allegedly occurred." In this case, the plaintiff admitted in responses to Requests for Admissions that she lacked evidence.

The Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on both of the grounds argued: Statute of Limitations, and the lack of causation.