Whitehill

Whitehill v. Valente CA1/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 18, 2014A137613California4,773 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 4/25/14 Whitehill v. Valente CA1/1 Opinion received for posting 6/18/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

MICHAEL WHITEHILL,

Defendant and Cross-Appellant,

A137613

v. SUZANNE VALENTE, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. CIV508978) Plaintiff and Appellant.

In this appeal, Suzanne Valente challenges the trial court’s sustaining of Michael Whitehill’s demurrer to her complaint without leave to amend. Valente argues that while the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.61 is applicable to attorney malpractice actions, it does not apply to her claims because they are not based on legal malpractice. Whitehill cross-appeals from the court’s ruling denying his section 128.7 motion for sanctions.…

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.