 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wong v. Hunt2/21/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Appellant Rollin Wong appeals the summary judgment entered for respondents Steven D. Hunt, Richard G. Reinjohn (individually and as a professional corporation), and William N. McMillan, III (individually and as a law corporation). After review, we affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
June Yasuda hired appellant attorney Rollin Wong and a second attorney (who is not a party to this appeal) to represent her in a wrongful death action. The action was unsuccessful. Yasuda then hired respondents Steven D. Hunt, Richard G. Reinjohn, and William N. McMillan, III, to pursue a malpractice claim against appellant Wong's co-counsel. She told them not to sue Wong because he was her friend and she did not think his legal services had been deficient. Nevertheless, in April 1999, respondents filed a malpractice complaint against both Wong and his co-counsel.
Wong moved to strike the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. The court agreed the complaint was time-barred and dismissed Wong in a minute order dated September 21, 1999, stating "the statute of limitations [for legal malpractice] has run." After Wong's dismissal, Yasuda filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the entire action and the court entered its judgment dismissing the matter in October 1999.
Wong thereafter sued respondents for malicious prosecution. Respondents moved for summary judgment. They argued Wong could not establish the necessary element of "favorable termination" of the legal malpractice lawsuit because he had been dismissed on statute of limitation grounds. The court agreed and dismissed Wong's complaint. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court grants summary judgment when a moving party establishes the right to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 437c, subd. (c).) In reviewing a summary judgment, we assume the role of the trial court and redetermine the merits of the motion. In doing so, we strictly scrutinize the moving party's papers. (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 549, disapproved on another point in Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1245.) We liberally construe, however, the opposition to summary judgment in search of triable issues of fact. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1556.) We resolve all doubts as to whether any triable issues exist in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. (Ibid.)
DISCUSSION
1. Summary Judgment Was Proper
Wong contends the court erred in dismissing his complaint for malicious prosecution. To prevail in his malicious prosecution claim, Wong needed to prove the malpractice lawsuit terminated in his favor. (Warren v. Wasserman, Comden & Casselman (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1297, 1301 (Warren).) Dismissal of the malpractice complaint under statute of limitation grounds was not, however, a favorable termination as case law has defined that element. (Lackner v. LaCroix (1979) 25 Cal.3d 747, 752; Warren, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1301-1302; Stanley v. Superior Court (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 460, 465.) Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting respondents' motion for summary judgment.
Wong argues we should nevertheless find the malpractice complaint was favorably terminated. He notes that the purpose of the
Page 1 2 3 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|