Worthington

Worthington v. Rusconi

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1119·29 Cal. App. 2d 1488·29 Cal. App. 4th 1488·35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 169·94 Daily Journal DAR 15618
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 3, 1994H011126California3,895 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cottle, J.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court determined, on a summary judgment motion, that plaintiff’s attorney malpractice action was time barred. The applicable statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6) is tolled during that period “[t]he attorney continues to represent the plaintiff regarding the specific subject matter in which the alleged wrongful act or omission occurred . . . .” (§ 340.6, subd. (a)(2).) In the court below, defendant asserted that his representation of plaintiff ceased, as a matter of law, more than one year before plaintiffs action was filed, as plaintiff lost confidence in him and consulted with another attorney. Plaintiff, on the other hand, claimed that defendant continued to represent her until 11 months before she filed suit. As the evidence presented at the summary judgment hearing discloses a triable issue of material fact regarding the date on which defendant’s representation of plaintiff ended, summary judgment was not properly granted. Accordingly, we shall reverse the judgment.

II. Facts and Procedural History

In November 1982 plaintiff’s mother executed a last will and testament, leaving…

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.