Amilcar A.J. Marchetti v. Michael J. Treman

Good Law
985 F.2d 573·1993 WL 20499·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 8336
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 1, 199391-55891California959 words

Opinion

Opinion

985 F.2d 573 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Amilcar A.J. MARCHETTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. TREMAN, Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-55891. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 27, 1993. * Decided Feb. 1, 1993. Before REINHARDT, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Amilcar Marchetti appeals pro se the district court's grant of defendant Michael J. Treman's motion for summary judgment in Marchetti's legal malpractice action against Treman, his criminal trial attorney. The district court granted Treman's summary judgment motion based on Marchetti's failure to submit any expert evidence to refute Treman's expert testimony. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. Brown v. Ticor Title Insurance Co., No. 91-15474, slip op. 14803, 14812 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 1992). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. 3 Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party presents…

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.