570 F.Supp.3d 246
D.N.J.2021Background
- Plaintiffs Jean François Rigollet and Le Macaron, LLC (both French/Nevada-connected) retained New Jersey attorney Mitchell J. Kassoff to sue Le Macaron Development, LLC (Florida) under a franchise dispute.
- Kassoff filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
- The Florida action was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on May 11, 2017.
- On June 21, 2021, Plaintiffs sued Kassoff in New Jersey state court for legal malpractice, alleging negligent filing in the wrong court and recovery of fees; Defendant removed to federal court.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Florida’s two-year statute of limitations for malpractice claims bars Plaintiffs’ suit; Plaintiffs argued New Jersey’s six-year statute applies.
- The Court applied New Jersey choice-of-law rules (Restatement §142), concluded New Jersey lacked a substantial interest, applied Florida’s two-year limitation, and dismissed the malpractice claims as time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state’s statute of limitations governs the malpractice claim? | New Jersey’s six-year statute should apply because the attorney is NJ-licensed and suit was filed in NJ. | Florida’s two-year malpractice statute applies because the underlying conduct and dispute occurred in Florida and involve non-NJ parties. | Applied New Jersey conflict rules (Restatement §142); Florida’s two-year statute governs. |
| Are Plaintiffs’ malpractice claims timely under the applicable statute? | Claims are timely if NJ’s six-year period applies. | Claims are untimely under Florida’s two-year period because the Florida action was dismissed on May 11, 2017. | Because Florida’s two-year statute applies, the malpractice claims (filed June 21, 2021) are time-barred and dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarrell v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 227 N.J. 569 (2017) (New Jersey adopts Restatement §142 for choice-of-law on statutes of limitations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for federal pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560 (3d Cir. 2011) (apply favorable inferences to plaintiff at motion to dismiss)
- Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Group Ltd., 181 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 1999) (courts may take judicial notice of other proceedings)
- MTK Food Servs., Inc. v. Sirius Am. Ins. Co., 455 N.J. Super. 307 (App. Div. 2018) (NJ does not have substantial interest where conduct and dispute occur elsewhere)
- Bernick v. Frost, 210 N.J. Super. 397 (App. Div. 1986) (distinguished; involved NJ residents and a NJ fee agreement rather than out-of-state litigation)