Nielsen

Nielsen v. Beck

Good Law
157 Cal. App. 4th 1041·69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 435
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 7, 2008B195402California4,461 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldrich, J.

I

INTRODUCTION

Summary judgment was entered in favor of defendants and respondents Paul A. Beck and the law firm of Ben-Zvi & Beck, LLP (collectively, Beck), and against plaintiffs and appellants Robert Nielsen and William Nielsen (collectively, the Nielsens).

The issue we address in this legal malpractice case is whether there are triable issues of fact with regard to the statute of limitations. The resolution of this issue centers upon subdivision (a)(2) of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 that tolls the statute if an attorney “continues to represent the plaintiff regarding the specific subject matter in which the alleged wrongful act or omission occurred.”

We reverse because there are triable issues of fact.

II

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Facts.

1. The initial retention of Beck.

The Nielsens owned PrimePapers, Inc. (PrimePapers), a company that cuts rolls of paper used by other commercial interests.

Attorney Richard Berger referred the Nielsens to Beck to assist with the potential bankruptcy of PrimePapers. Beck was hired by PrimePapers and its affiliate entity, PrimePapers Louisiana (PPL). The April 11, 2003, written fee agreement stated that…

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.