Pointe San Diego Residential Community L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP
195 Cal. App. 4th 265
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Three entities (Pointe Residential, Pointe SDMU, Gosnell Builders) sued their former attorneys for legal malpractice and related claims; court granted demurrer and judgment on pleadings finding time-bar issues and inapplicability of relation-back, which this court reverses to relate claims to an earlier timely complaint; underlying Pointe I and Pointe II real estate litigation involved Weingarten financing and multiple appellate proceedings; original malpractice action was filed April 9, 2004, within one year of substitution of new counsel but more than a year after some injuries and after separate litigation developments; trial court held fourth amended complaint untimely and ineligible for relation-back under Davaloo; appellate court held the relation-back doctrine applies so the third and fourth amended complaints relate back to the original April 2004 complaint; the decision discusses tolling for legal malpractice under CCP 340.6 and distinguishes Davaloo from the present facts; the final disposition is reversal and remand with costs awarded to plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaints relate back to the original filing. | Plaintiffs contend relation back should apply to make the later amendments timely. | Procopio argues Davaloo controls, relation back inapplicable due to lack of factual detail. | Yes, relation back applies. |
| Whether the statute of limitations is satisfied for the malpractice claims. | Claims were timely because injuries were discovered or incurred within the one-year window. | Claims untimely as the fourth amended complaint was filed after the limitations period and not tolled. | Not decided here; related-back analysis controls the timeliness. |
| What governs the relation-back analysis in this legal malpractice context. | Original complaint gave adequate notice of the Pointe I representation and errors; continuation of the same injury. | Davalo o dictates stricter limits; original complaint was too bare to relate back. | Relation back is permitted under the facts and is not barred by Davaloo. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davaloo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 135 Cal.App.4th 409 (Cal. App. Dist. 2, 2005) (limits on relation back when initial complaint lacks factual detail)
- Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, 18 Cal.4th 739 (Cal. 1998) (tolling and actual injury for statute of limitations in legal malpractice)
- Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co., 5 Cal.4th 854 (Cal. 1993) (one primary right; multiple acts in same transaction treated as single claim for limitations)
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999) (relation back and pleading standards in California)
- Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 466 F.3d 570 (7th Cir. 2006) (federal perspective on relation back and notice)