Broadway Victoria v. Norminton, Wiita & Fuster, B266060

Broadway Victoria, LLC sued former attorneys Norminton, Wiita & Fuster for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty arising from representation in an underlying breach of contract action.
The underlying dispute involved a lease with Lorber Industries, a right of first refusal, and an option to purchase; Lorber built a large building on the property.
Lorber Industries filed bankruptcy; Lorber sought to assign the lease to Broadway and there was a stipulated order retaining bankruptcy court jurisdiction.
Plaintiff later sued Elixir for selling the property without giving notice; defenses argued plaintiff lacked standing, and the state court case was litigated from 2008–2011.
Plaintiff ultimately paid substantial attorney fees in the Elixir action; Broadway then filed a malpractice suit in 2012 and amended in 2013.
A jury trial in 2015 ended with a verdict that defendants did not breach the duty of care; trial court granted nonsuits on fiduciary duty and on the claim of failure to advise about a potential Buchalter malpractice claim; the judgment was entered for defendants and plaintiff appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to advise about related malpractice claims	Broadway argues defendants should have warned about Buchalter malpractice.	Defendants contend advice about Buchalter malpractice fell outside the scope of representation.	Nonsuit affirmed; no duty to advise about Buchalter malpractice.
Fiduciary duty duplicative of malpractice	Fiduciary claim rests on failure to pursue bankruptcy option; distinct from negligence.	Fiduciary claim duplicative of malpractice; should be dismissed.	Nonsuit affirmed; fiduciary claim duplicative and dismissed.
Whether bankruptcy court option was improperly ignored	Bankruptcy option was a viable, cheaper path the attorney should have pursued or disclosed.	Option was considered but not reasonably apparent as a duty; decision within attorney’s professional judgment.	No breach of fiduciary duty; no duty to disclose this option.
Evidence under Evidence Code 352 (customs fraud)	Customs fraud evidence was highly prejudicial and should have been excluded.	Evidence relevant to defense; probative value outweighed prejudice.	Court did not abuse discretion; balancing supported denial of in limine.
Legal standards for weighing 352 balancing	Trial court failed to conduct explicit weighing.	Record shows awareness and consideration of prejudice; proper balancing occurred.	No 352 abuse; weighing adequate on record.

Redante v. Yockelson, 112 Cal.App.4th 1351 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (elements of legal malpractice and duty of care)
Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 465 (Cal. 2001) (duty of care; scope of professional duty)
Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, 119 Cal.App.4th 930 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (duty to alert client to related matters outside scope)
Nally v. Grace Community Church, 47 Cal.3d 278 (Cal. 1988) (standard for evaluating nonsuit; substantial evidence needed)
People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690 (Cal. 2000) (weighing of prejudice vs. probative value in 352 analysis)