Fantazia

Fantazia v. County of Stanislaus

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 53·41 Cal. App. 4th 1444·49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 177·96 Daily Journal DAR 781·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 507
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 23, 1996F021721California3,825 words

Opinion

Opinion

Dibiaso, J.

In the published portion of this opinion we hold that in an action for legal malpractice arising out of an attorney’s representation of a defendant in a criminal case, the plaintiff sustains “actual injury” under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, subdivision (a)(1), at the latest on the date when his or her sentence to state prison in the underlying criminal case is ordered executed. We will ultimately affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants and respondents.

Procedural History

On June 24, 1991, appellant Ronald D. Fantazia filed a complaint against respondents County of Stanislaus, the Stanislaus County Public Defender, Deputy Public Defender Fred Small, and various Does. The complaint sought general and special damages based on alleged legal malpractice. Respondents answered with a general denial and a multitude of affirmative defenses.

On February 4, 1994, respondents successfully moved for summary judgment on the grounds appellant failed to timely comply with the claim requirements of the Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), or to file suit within the period prescribed by section 340.6. Judgment in favor of…

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.