Tijerino v. Miller
2:23-cv-07391
E.D. La.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Manuel Tijerino was terminated from his job at Tulane and subsequently filed an FMLA lawsuit against Tulane, alleging improper notice and retaliation related to his leave rights.
- Gregory J. Miller represented Tijerino in the litigation, but summary judgment was granted for Tulane, and Tijerino’s claims were dismissed.
- Miller failed to file a post-judgment Rule 59 motion on time due to a calendaring error, which he admitted to Tijerino and refunded his retainer.
- Tijerino, proceeding pro se after, filed for post-judgment relief without success, and then sued Miller for legal malpractice and related claims, asserting several instances of inadequate representation.
- Miller moved for summary judgment, arguing almost all of Tijerino’s claims were perempted (time-barred) except the failure to file a timely Rule 59 motion, and that the remaining claim lacked merit.
- The court granted summary judgment for Miller, finding most claims time-barred and insufficient evidence that a Rule 59 motion would have succeeded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peremption of malpractice claims | Claims discovered within a year of suit | Peremption began when Tijerino learned of adverse judgment | Claims pre-dating Rule 59 error are time-barred |
| Failure to file Rule 59 motion as malpractice | Timely Rule 59 could have changed outcome | No evidence Rule 59 would have changed the result | No material fact that outcome would have changed |
| Need for additional discovery (Rule 56(d)) | Discovery necessary to rebut summary judgment | Requests are vague, non-material, or time-barred | Denied; discovery would not create material fact |
| Timeliness of opposition to summary judgment | Miller failed to timely oppose summary judgment | Miller timely obtained extension and filed timely opposition | Opposition was timely filed; no malpractice there |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (standard for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (standard for granting summary judgment when no genuine issue)
- MB Indus., LLC v. CNA Ins. Co., 74 So. 3d 1173 (La. 2011) (elements and causation requirement for legal malpractice)
- Jenkins v. Starns, 85 So. 3d 612 (La. 2012) (constructive knowledge for peremption period)
- Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Diaz-Santiago, 674 F.3d 21 (Rule 59 motion standards)