Cimmet

Smith v. Cimmet

Good Law
132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 276·199 Cal. App. 4th 1381·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1311
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 18, 2011No. A129586California6,782 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sepulveda, J.

The personal representative of an Oregon estate brought a legal malpractice action against California attorneys who had been retained by the previous representative in an unsuccessful lawsuit against the decedent’s California business partner. The current estate representative alleged that his predecessor’s attorneys prosecuted a meritless lawsuit that unnecessarily expended estate assets. The attorney defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings contending that the Oregon representative lacked capacity to sue because his authority did not extend beyond Oregon, and lacked standing to sue because plaintiff representative was never a client of the attorneys. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438.) The trial court granted the motion on the second ground. The court held that Oregon law controls the rights of an Oregon estate representative and, under Oregon case law, a successor representative has no standing to prosecute a legal malpractice claim against attorneys retained to represent the predecessor representative.

The estate representative appeals and argues that he has standing under both California and Oregon law. Defendants dispute that argument, and renew their challenge to the…

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.