Appeals Court Affirms Judgment in Strasburger & Price's Favor in Malpractice Suit
A panel of the Texas Court of Appeals in Dallas affirmed a summary judgment in favor of Strasburger & Price and other defendants in the negligence suit filed by a former client.
November 21, 2018 at 02:21 PM
3 minute read
A Dallas appeals court has affirmed a summary judgment in favor of defendants Strasburger & Price, another firm and three lawyers in a legal malpractice suit.
In an opinion dated Nov. 19, the Texas Court of Appeals in Dallas affirmed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Strasburger & Price—now Clark Hill Strasburger since a merger in April—as well as former partner Daniel Lanfear, The Law Office of Donato D. Ramos of Laredo, Donato Ramos and Alfredo Ramos, in a negligence suit brought by former client Target Strike.
Daniel Butcher, a Clark Hill Strasburger partner in Dallas who was managing partner of Strasburger & Price before the merger, said in a statement that the firm is “pleased with the outcome of this case.”
The partner representing the Ramos defendants in the appeal, Katherine Elrich of Cobb Martinez Woodward, could not immediately be reached for comment.
David Kassab of the Kassab Law Firm, who represented Target Strike, declined to comment on the opinion.
Target Strike, a former client of the defendants, filed a negligence suit against the defendants in 2014, alleging they filed an underlying business dispute suit in the wrong state, where a shorter statute of limitations ran out, destroying their $161 million claim.
Target Strike alleged in the malpractice petition filed in state court in Dallas County that the lawyers should have filed the underlying suit in Nevada, where there was a six-year statute of limitations on their claims, instead of in Texas, where the statute of limitations was four years.
In 2015, a trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the firms and the lawyers.
Target Strike appealed, alleging its claims in the underlying case would have withstood the statute of limitations if it had been filed in Nevada, and alleging the question of when the lawyers entered into an attorney/client relationship with it should have been considered by a jury.
In the opinion, a panel consisting of Justices David Bridges, Molly Francis and Elizabeth Lang-Miers found that the alleged failure of the firms and lawyers to file the underlying suit in Nevada could not have caused Target Strike's injuries because the suit was “not proper in that forum.”
The court also found in Target Strike v. Strasburger & Price that the limitations on all of Target Strike's claims had run out before Strasburger & Price or the Ramos firm represented it.
“[T]herefore, no act or omission by the lawyers could have caused any injury to support a legal malpractice claim,” Bridges wrote in the opinion.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readBig Law Leaders, Dealmakers Optimistic About M&A Deal Flow Under Trump, With Caveats
5 minute read'Not Enough Lawyers to Meet That Demand in Dallas:' New Squire Office Leader Eyes Hiring
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250