Zeitlin

Zeitlin v. Wetenhall

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 9, 202423-4035California627 words

Opinion

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC ZEITLIN, No. 23-4035 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:20-cv-01067-CL v.

MEMORANDUM*

NATALIE M. WETENHALL,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Mark D. Clarke, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 3, 2024** Portland, Oregon

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

After two failed sales of his property, Eric Zeitlin filed suit against Natalie

Wetenhall, asserting a single claim of legal malpractice and seeking compensatory

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). and consequential damages.1 The district court granted Wetenhall’s motion for

partial summary judgment as to compensatory damages. It then certified this

judgment as final under Federal Rule of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.