Mohamed v. Nolan Law Group
574 F. App'x 45
2d Cir.2014Background
- Mohamed appeals a district court order granting with prejudice defendants' motion to dismiss his attorney malpractice claim.
- District court held the claim untimely under New York CPLR 214(6) and Illinois 735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(c).
- The alleged negligent acts and omissions occurred well before the filing of the complaint.
- Court reviews dismissal de novo, accepting all factual claims as true.
- Court affirms district court, finding no plausible tolling to salvage timeliness; amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under New York law | Mohamed argues tolling extends the period | Nolan argues statute expired without tolling | Untimely under New York law |
| Timeliness under Illinois law | Untimely under Illinois law |
Key Cases Cited
- Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, 672 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2012) (de novo review; tolling evidence considered in context of complaint)
- Famous Horse Inc. v. 5th Ave. Photo Inc., 624 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard for evaluating motion to dismiss and pleading structure)
- Williams v. Citigroup Inc., 659 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2011) (leave to amend may be denied if futile)