Texas Wireless Retailer Sues North Carolina Firm for Legal Mal and Breach of Contract
Prime Communications alleges that Ragsdale Liggett agreed to use "best efforts" to represent it for free in a federal suit, but says the firm ended up devoting "little time and attention" to the work.
December 14, 2018 at 05:41 PM
3 minute read
A Texas-based cellphone retailer is seeking more than $1 million in damages in a legal malpractice suit alleging a North Carolina trial firm promised to use its best efforts to represent the company “free-of-charge” in a class-action suit after missing a filing deadline—but instead did very little work.
Prime Communications, a Sugar Land, Texas, company that is the nation's largest privately owned AT&T retailer, further alleges that the defendant, Raleigh, North Carolina-based Ragsdale Liggett, later withdrew entirely from the representation shortly before the due date for a response to a motion for summary judgment.
Prime Communications, which in November announced it would buy GameStop Corp.'s Spring Mobile business, brings breach of contract and legal malpractice causes of action against Ragsdale Liggett in the case—Prime Communications v. Ragsdale Liggett.
David Liggett, managing partner of Ragsdale Liggett, could not immediately be reached for comment.
In a petition filed Thursday in state district court in Harris County, Prime Communications alleges it retained Ragsdale Liggett to defend it from a federal suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state law claims.
Prime Communications alleges that a judge in March 2014 entered an order conditionally granting class certification in that suit, but Ragsdale Liggett did not seek permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the order until three days after the deadline to do so. Ultimately, the plaintiff alleges, an appeals court dismissed that petition as untimely filed.
“Ragsdale, of course, was now on the hook for malpractice,” Prime Communications alleges.
Prime Communications alleges the firm persuaded it to enter into a letter agreement July 18, 2014, in which it agreed to forego filing a malpractice claim against the firm, and the firm agreed to “use its 'best efforts' to represent Prime Communications free-of-charge for the remainder of the NC lawsuit.”
Prime Communications notes in the petition that the agreement called for Ragsdale Liggett to receive any available defense payments from Prime Communications' insurance provider, but the firm would not seek more if its charges exceeded the insurer's payments.
Prime Communications alleges that after that agreement, it became clear the firm was not putting forth its best efforts.
“Instead, it appeared that Ragsdale devoted as little time and attention to the case as it could,” Prime Communications alleges.
On April 6, 2017, an associate general counsel for Prime Communications, in an email, “expressed his concerns regarding Ragsdale's 'sub-par' efforts, which Prime Communications believed was in violation of the parties' July 18, 2014, letter agreement.”
Less than a week later—and less than two weeks before the due date for Prime Communications' response to a motion for summary judgment—Ragsdale Liggett notified the firm it was withdrawing from the suit due to a conflict of interest that arose because of the email from the associate general counsel.
Prime Communications is represented by Ashish Mahendru, of Mahendru P.C. of Houston. Mahendru could not immediately be reached for comment.
Further Reading:
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
© 2025 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 AllEversheds Sutherland Adds Hunton Andrews Energy Lawyer With Cross-Border Experience
3 minute readEx-Marathon General Counsel Takes Legal Reins of Another Energy Company
After Nearly 2 Decades in the Role, Longtime Haynes and Boone General Counsel Passes the Baton
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1NY AG James Targets Crypto Fraud Which Allegedly Ensnared Victims With Fake Jobs
- 2The 'Motherhood Advantage' in Law: Time to Flip the Script
- 3Fenwick & West Shutters Decade-Old Shanghai Office
- 4Thompson Coe, 2 Lawyers, Hit by $1M+ Legal Mal Suit
- 5Regulatory Intelligence Platform Abstract Announces $4.8 Million in Seed Funding
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