Church

Church v. Jamison

Good Law
143 Cal. App. 4th 1568·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1652·2006 Daily Journal DAR 14103·50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 166·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9880
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 23, 2006F048224California6,400 words

Opinion

Opinion

Dawson, J.

John Church sued his former employer for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and various Labor Code violations. We will call that lawsuit, which is not on appeal here, the “employment case.” The superior court in that case sustained a demurrer to the Labor Code claims on the ground they were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Subsequently, Church brought a second action, which is the subject of the current appeal and which we will call the “malpractice case.” It is a suit for legal malpractice against the attorney who filed the lawsuit in the employment case, respondents Daniel O. Jamison and the Law Offices of Daniel O. Jamison. Church alleged Jamison’s failure to file the complaint in the employment case sooner resulted in Labor Code claims being time-barred. Jamison filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the malpractice case on the ground that he did not commit malpractice in the employment case because the Labor Code claims were either time-barred before he was retained or, alternatively, were not time-barred when he filed the complaint in that case. The latter of these alternate arguments directly contradicts the superior court’s order…

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.