Case Summaries

Legal Malpractice

[11/14] In Re Buster
In a suit alleging negligence by a nursing home, in which plaintiff submitted an expert report signed by a nurse, and then sought leave to cure this deficiency by submitting a different report signed by a physician, petition for mandamus relief is granted where the appeals court erred in holding that a new report from a different expert was not allowed.

[11/13] Mosier v. Callister, Nebeker & McCullough
In a suit brought by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of a nonprofit organization against a law firm and two of its attorneys alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and civil conspiracy, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err by imputing the conduct of certain offers to the nonprofit; 2) it correctly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto in holding as a matter of law that the nonprofit's misconduct, as evidenced by the actions of its officers and directors, was greater than defendants' fault in failing to counsel the nonprofit; and 3) there was no error in applying the doctrine against a trustee in bankruptcy.

[11/13] Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hosp.
In a medical malpractice action against hospital and doctor, petition for writ of supersedeas directing the trial court to reduce the amount of its appeal bond is denied where: 1) the lump sum present value of the judgment against defendant-hospital was the "amount of the judgment" for the purpose of calculating the undertaking required to stay the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1; and 2) the trial court properly set the amount of defendant-hospital's appeal bond at 1.5 times the lump sum present value of plaintiff's judgment against it.

[11/13] Teague v. Kent Gen. Hosp.
In a medical-malpractice case, denials of plaintiff's motion for a new trial and for reargument of the exclusion of medical expert testimony are affirmed where: 1) defendant made a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law after plaintiff's expert failed on direct examination to establish the relevant standard of care; and 2) the trial judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by declining to allow additional voir dire of plaintiff's expert via telephone.

[10/31] Iowa Physicians' Clinic Med. Found. v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin
In a suit in which plaintiff-policyholder sought damages in tort for the alleged bad-faith refusal by defendant-insurer to settle a malpractice claim against an insured doctor who was plaintiff's employee, judgment for defendant is affirmed where under state law, a bad-faith claim was available only to an insured, not to an uninsured policyholder.

[10/29] Jensen v. Phillips Screw Co.
Sanctions order against law firm for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings in a class action case are vacated in part and remanded where: 1) sanctions under section 1927 were not available for any alleged failure on appellant-law firm's part to vet plaintiff or investigate the bona fides of his claim; 2) the district court abused its discretion in reaching the sanctions determination with respect to the phase of litigation the case was in; 3) appellant-law firm's response to defendant's motion could not be termed a "concession" by the law firm to name recruited individual as a plaintiff; and 4) court's determination of sanctionable conduct in connection with the abortive filing of the motion to substitute the named plaintiff and putative class representative must be set aside because its precursor findings were set aside.

[10/27] Williams v. Russ
Dismissal of legal malpractice complaint against defendant-attorney and his law firm is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff allowed the destruction of most of his client files after obtaining them from defendant pursuant to a discovery request; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a terminating sanction for that misconduct.

More...