Frantz v. Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP
161 Idaho 60
| Idaho | 2016Background
- Frantz retained Merlyn Clark (a partner at Hawley Troxell) as an expert in a 2009 malpractice suit; Clark prepared a report and gave advice but did not testify in the final resolution. Frantz paid Clark’s bill.
- In 2010 Idaho Independent Bank (the Bank) sued Frantz; Hawley Troxell represented the Bank in that suit and later in Frantz’s 2011 bankruptcy and a 2013 adversary proceeding. Clark did not participate in the Bank’s 2010 suit.
- In the bankruptcy adversary proceeding Frantz moved to disqualify Hawley Troxell, claiming Clark had become his attorney (not merely a testifying expert) and that the firm possessed confidential information; the bankruptcy court found no attorney-client relationship. The adversary later became moot after Frantz obtained a waiver of discharge.
- Frantz sued Hawley Troxell in state court for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty (Feb 2015). The district court dismissed the complaint (judicial estoppel / abatement under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(8)), denied pro hac vice admission for out-of-state counsel Jeffrey Katz (likely to be a necessary witness), and awarded fees to Hawley Troxell. Frantz appealed; he later stipulated to dismiss the fee-appeal issue.
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed dismissal under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(8) (another action pending between same parties/same cause), found the pro hac vice issue moot, and awarded Hawley Troxell appellate fees under Idaho Code § 12-121.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(8) (abatement) was an abuse of discretion | Frantz: bankruptcy disqualification proceeding differs from malpractice claims (different remedies, burdens, right to jury), so actions are not the "same cause"; abatement would deny jury trial and is inappropriate when remedies differ | Hawley Troxell: bankruptcy adversary and related proceedings litigated the same core issue (existence of attorney-client relationship); the bankruptcy proceedings were pending and thus abatement appropriate | Court: Affirmed dismissal under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(8); the same parties/issues were pending in bankruptcy, so dismissal was within court's discretion |
| Whether district court erred denying Katz pro hac vice admission | Frantz: denial was improper (argues district court misapplied out-of-state authority) | Hawley Troxell: Katz likely violated ethics rules and would be a necessary witness (I.R.P.C. 3.7), so pro hac vice should be denied | Court: Issue is moot given dismissal; district court’s factual/legal reasoning (Katz likely a witness under Rule 3.7) not reviewed further |
| Whether Hawley Troxell entitled to appellate fees under Idaho Code § 12-121 | Frantz: appeal is not mere second-guessing; district court opinions were poorly reasoned so no fees on appeal | Hawley Troxell: appeal frivolous/unreasonable; parties asked the Court to reweigh evidence and failed to show district court misapplied law | Court: Awarded appellate fees under § 12-121; appeal invited second-guessing and added no new analysis or authorities |
| Whether judicial estoppel / lack of standing precluded Frantz’s suit | Frantz: (implicit) his claims were his to pursue | Hawley Troxell: Frantz failed to disclose the malpractice cause of action in bankruptcy, so the claim became property of the estate and only the trustee had standing; judicial estoppel applies | Court: Did not reach this issue (affirmed on 12(b)(8) ground) |
Key Cases Cited
- Klaue v. Hern, 133 Idaho 437, 988 P.2d 211 (discretionary review of I.R.C.P. 12(b)(8) abatement decisions)
- Kugler v. Nelson, 160 Idaho 408, 374 P.3d 571 (standard for reviewing trial court abuse of discretion)
- Bishop v. Owens, 152 Idaho 616, 272 P.3d 1247 (existence of attorney-client relationship is element of malpractice claim)
- Idaho Military Historical Soc’y v. Maslen, 156 Idaho 624, 329 P.3d 1072 (statutory standard for awarding attorney fees under § 12-121)
- Snider v. Arnold, 153 Idaho 641, 289 P.3d 43 (award of appellate fees where appellant merely asks court to reweigh evidence or fails to show misapplication of law)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 160 Idaho 294, 371 P.3d 807 (awarding fees when appellant adds no new analysis or authority)
- Castrigno v. McQuade, 141 Idaho 93, 106 P.3d 419 (affirming fee awards where appeal did not add new authority)
- Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion, 144 Idaho 119, 157 P.3d 613 (issue preclusion requires a final judgment on the merits)