Munoz

Munoz v. Davis

Bad Law
141 Cal. App. 3d 420·190 Cal. Rptr. 400·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1537
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 28, 1983Civ. 66464California4,565 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Facts and Proceedings Below

In June 1979 plaintiff Raul Rodriguez was a passenger in an automobile which collided with an automobile driven by the cross-defendant, Thomas R. Davis. Rodriguez retained Frank E. Munoz to represent him in a claim for personal injuries against Davis. According to Rodriguez, Munoz failed to file a complaint within the statutory time period. Rodriguez then sued Munoz for legal malpractice alleging that as a result of Munoz’ negligence in failing to file the complaint within the prescribed period Rodriguez’ cause of action is now barred by the statute of limitations. Munoz answered Rodriguez’ complaint admitting that he is an attorney; that he was retained to represent Rodriguez in his claim against Davis; and denying the remaining material allegations of the complaint.

Concurrent with his answer, Munoz filed a cross-complaint against Davis for equitable indemnification. The cross-complaint alleges that Davis was negligent in operating his automobile and that if Munoz is liable to Rodriguez for any damages those damages are the proximate result of Davis’ negligence; therefore Munoz is entitled to partial indemnification from Davis. Davis…

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.