ORDER Plaintiff Andrea Morrone (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against her former attorneys Defendants Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara, Wolf & Carrone LLP and Samuel J. Ferrara, Esq. (together, “Defendants”) for their alleged malpractice in her divorce proceedings in New York state court. Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Plaintiff’s cross-motion to strike the statements and exhibits attached to a declaration submitted alongside Defendants’ motion papers. For the reasons below, Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is granted. BACKGROUND The following facts, taken from the Amended Complaint, are treated as true for the purposes of this decision. On June 10, 2011, Plaintiff signed a retainer agreement for Defendants “to represent [her] in connection with [her] matrimonial difficulties.” Am. Compl. (“AC”) 8, ECF No. 5; Retainer Agmt., Ex. A to AC, ECF No. 5-1. Ultimately, her difficulties resulted in a divorce action in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County: Iannucci v. Iannucci, Index No. 0201340/2009, AC 9. During the proceedings, the state court appointed a neutral forensic expert to examine the marital property. Id. 49. Among other findings, the court’s expert deemed Plaintiff’s ex-husband’s bakery to have “no value,” despite it being in business for over twenty years. Id. 50. Plaintiff, through Defendants, retained her own expert, who prepared a report which in part rebutted the court-appointed expert’s valuation of the bakery. Id. 51. Trial commenced from December 12, 2013 to January 22, 2016. Decision and Order After Trial dated December 12, 2016 (“Dec. 12, 2016 Decision”), Ex. D to Decl. of Adam Nicolazzo (“Nicolazzo Declaration” or “Nicolazzo Decl.”), ECF No. 15-4.1 Although Plaintiff’s expert “was ready, willing and able to testify that millions of dollars were unaccounted for by” the court-appointed expert, “Defendants never put [Plaintiff's expert] on the stand.” AC 51. In post-trial briefing, Plaintiff, through Defendants, made a written application for attorney’s fees in the amount of $675,184.09. Dec. 12, 2016 Decision at 45-46. According to the Amended Complaint, however, the ex-husband calculated that Defendants actually “claimed $830,184.00″ in attorney’s fees. AC 15. Upon review of the ex-husband’s calculation, Plaintiff allegedly learned that Defendants “engaged in a pattern, custom, and practice of inefficient, ineffective, and wasteful billing” to inflate their legal fees. Id.
16-17, 36-42, 44. The state court issued its decision on December 12, 2016. See Dec. 12, 2016 Decision. It held in part: Notwithstanding the wife’s claim that [the court's expert's] appraisal was undervalued and based upon assumptions and suppositions caused by the husband’s failure to provide documentation, data and testimony, [Plaintiff] did not offer a rebuttal witness to substantiate her claims. Id. at 25; see also id. at 30 (“The court notes that although the wife disputes the valuations provided by the expert, no counter-report or rebuttal testimony was offered to refute the findings of [the court-appointed expert].”). The state court thus adopted its appointed expert’s valuations, including the bakery’s zero-dollar value. Id. The state court also granted Plaintiff $275,000.00 in attorney’s fees. Id. at 48. Defendants allegedly assured Plaintiff they would appeal the December 12, 2016 Decision. AC 29. They also negotiated a “settlement of the legal fees owed” by Plaintiff, capping her bill at $100,000.00. Ltr. dated Sept. 17, 2017, Ex. F to AC, ECF No. 5-6. The agreement explained that “[a]ny additional fees [Defendants were] able to collect from [the ex-husband would] be applied against those fees [Defendants were] not collecting from” Plaintiff. Id. It also confirmed the parties’ “discussions regarding any potential consequences that” certain actions “may have on [the parties'] arguments on appeal.” Id. After a year, and despite billing “tens of thousands of dollars,” Defendants “conceded they were not equipped to handle an appeal” and recommended Plaintiff contact an appellate attorney by the name of “G. Koopersmith.” AC
