Nest26 Groups, Inc. v. Rader, Fishman & Grauer Pllc

MEMORANDUM

Nest26 Groups, Inc. (Nest) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees Rader, Fishman & Grauer PLLC (Rader) and Mary Margaret O’Donnell (O’Donnell). Nest asserts that Rader and O’Donnell served as Nest’s legal representatives for the registration and assignment of its PRATTS trademark. Nest contends that the district court erred when it entered summary judgment based on Nest’s failure to establish the requisite attorney-client relationship for its breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and gross negligence claims.

Nest failed to present any evidence in support of its fiduciary duty claim, and the undisputed facts demonstrate that Rader and O’Donnell did not represent Nest in registering or assigning the trademark. See Zenith Ins. Co. v. Cozen O’Connor, 148 Cal.App.4th 998, 1010 , 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 911 (2007) (“California law is settled that a client’s subjective belief that an attorney-client relationship exists, standing alone, cannot create such a relationship, or a duty of care owed by the attorney to that plaintiff. This is because a plaintiff cannot unilaterally establish an attorney-client relationship, and its hindsight beliefs that such…