Michael Calmese v. Anthony McNamer
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Michael Cálmese appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging legal malpractice in connection with Anthony E. McNamer’s representation of Cálmese in a trademark action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 260 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Calmese’s action against McNamer as barred by the statute of limitations. See Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or. 270 , 265 P.3d 777, 781-82 (2011) (two-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims; the discovery rule postpones accrual until a plaintiff knows or should have known of a substantial possibility that he was harmed by a lawyer’s acts or omissions). Contrary to Calmese’s contention, he is not entitled to tolling due to wrongful concealment. See Chaney v. Fields Chevrolet Co., 264 Or. 21 , 503 P.2d 1239, 1241 (1972) (wrongful concealment of facts that prevents discovery of a wrong or knowledge of a cause of action will toll the statute of limitations).