Sindell

Sindell v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 382·54 Cal. App. 4th 1457·63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 594·97 Daily Journal DAR 6248·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3678
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 15, 1997B098154California6,496 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

In this case we consider an appeal from an order sustaining the demurrer to a complaint for attorney malpractice not because it was filed beyond the applicable limitations period, but because it was filed too soon. Plaintiffs Carolyn Sindell and Cathleen Caballero are the adult daughters of Harold A. Caballero (Harold), now deceased. They filed this action for professional malpractice against the defendants Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, a law firm, and Shari Leinward, a partner in that firm (collectively, the defendants).

The gravamen of plaintiffs’ action is that the defendants, who had been retained by Harold to prepare and document his estate plan, negligently failed to obtain a consent thereto from Harold’s spouse, Kathleen. As a result, litigation with Kathleen ensued following Harold’s death over just what assets were properly to be included in and distributed from his estate. That litigation is still ongoing and is not yet resolved. Nonetheless, plaintiffs filed suit, alleging that they had already suffered an “actual injury” as a result of defendants’ alleged negligence. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action…

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.