Slovensky

Slovensky v. Friedman

Good Law
142 Cal. App. 4th 1518·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1438·2006 Daily Journal DAR 12693·49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 60·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8904
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 19, 2006C049442California6,620 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

After settling a toxic mold personal injury complaint against an apartment complex, plaintiff Tamara Slovensky filed a tort action against her attorneys, pleading two counts (styled “Cause[s] of Action”). Her first count, for legal malpractice, alleged defendants negligently failed to obtain an adequate recovery. Her second count, for breach of fiduciary duty, alleged defendants misrepresented and concealed material facts in the course of the litigation. As to both counts, she sought damages and “other and further relief.”

Defendants (Morton L. Friedman, C. Brooks Cutter, the law firm of Friedman, Collard, Cutter & Panneton, and Cutter Law Firm) moved for summary judgment, maintaining plaintiff could not prove damages, because the statute of limitations had run on plaintiff’s claims before she had consulted defendants. Defendants did not move for summary adjudication in the alternative or adduce evidence to negate plaintiff’s allegations of breach of fiduciary duty.

The trial court granted summary judgment, agreeing with defendants that plaintiff’s inability to prove damages for malpractice defeated her entire action. The court also found plaintiff could not seek…

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.