Kantor v. McDermott Will & Emery CA2/8
B264278
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2016Background
- James Rhys Kantor sued his former attorneys (McDermott Will & Emery, Lurie, Pearl) for legal malpractice, alleging negligent drafting of his father Paul Kantor’s 2002 estate plan caused him to lose a one‑quarter interest in Paul’s valuable art collection.
- In 2002 defendants prepared a Restatement of the family trust, an FLP agreement (never funded or registered), and a will; Paul’s art passed to his surviving wife Ulrike under the Restatement because no personal‑effects list was prepared.
- Plaintiff learned of the Restatement and sales of the art by 2003–2009 and litigated related claims against Ulrike and Kaufman in a separate trust action; a 2013 ruling confirmed the art fell within the Restatement’s personal effects provision.
- Plaintiff filed the malpractice suit in February 2014. Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (1) statute of limitations (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.6), (2) lack of standing, and (3) lack of causation; plaintiff did not file an opposition after his counsel withdrew and sought a continuance which the trial court denied.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on all three grounds; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the four‑year limitation in § 340.6 ran from the 2002 wrongful act and was not tolled by later events.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff's malpractice claim was barred by § 340.6 | Malpractice accrual date unclear; claim filed within perceived discovery window after 2013 trust ruling | Wrongful act occurred in 2002; suit filed in 2014 is beyond the four‑year limit absent tolling | Held: Claim barred; four‑year period ran from 2002 and expired before 2014 filing |
| Whether statute of limitations was tolled by actual injury or willful concealment | Tolling until 2013 judgment (actual injury realized then); privilege log shows concealment | Actual injury occurred at Paul’s 2002 death when plaintiff lost interest; withheld privileged materials irrelevant and defendants did not represent plaintiff in 2002 so no concealment tolling | Held: No tolling. Actual injury occurred in 2002; willful concealment not shown |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance for further discovery | Needed time to obtain privileged documents and an expert to oppose summary judgment | Plaintiff had ample time earlier, failed to show documents essential to tolling or that privilege could be overcome; expert irrelevant to limitations defense | Held: No abuse of discretion; continuance not mandatory because plaintiff failed to show essential facts existed or diligence |
| Whether defendants met initial summary judgment burden when opposition was not filed | Opposition not filed; movants still must meet burden | Defendants presented undisputed evidentiary facts proving statute of limitations defense | Held: Defendants met burden; summary judgment properly granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (review standard for summary judgment)
- Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, 18 Cal.4th 739 (definition of "actual injury" for § 340.6 malpractice accrual)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.4th 201 (attorney‑client privilege issues between trustee/beneficiary)
- Truong v. Glasser, 181 Cal.App.4th 102 (summary judgment and actual injury can be resolved when facts undisputed)
- Foxborough v. Van Atta, 26 Cal.App.4th 217 (actual injury may occur before later adjudication confirming rights)
- Harmon v. Mono Gen. Hosp., 131 Cal.App.3d 607 (moving party's initial burden on unopposed summary judgment)
- Cooksey v. Alexakis, 123 Cal.App.4th 246 (standards for continuance under Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(h))
- Roth v. Rhodes, 25 Cal.App.4th 530 (continuance affidavits must show facts essential to opposition)