Carl Perri and Marisa Michaelsen Win Summary Judgment Dismissal in Favor of Attorney-Client in Complex Legal Malpractice Litigation
Carl Perri and Marisa Michaelsen recently obtained dismissal with prejudice on behalf of our attorney-client in a complex litigation matter. The pleadings alleged numerous causes of action related to manufacturing discharge of hazardous substances into soil and groundwater during the 1950s-1990s. Plaintiffs alleged defendants ignored statutory and regulatory obligations to fully clean the contaminated soil and groundwater prior to developing the numerous properties into residential and commercial properties. Current owners of the effected properties filed third-party actions alleging negligence against various entities and individuals involved in their underlying purchase transactions in the 2010s, including our client, an attorney who represented one of the current owners in their purchase of real property. After discovery, we moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including the lack of expert testimony in support of the legal malpractice claims against our client. Third-Party Plaintiffs raised several issues in opposition, including that the claims against our client fall under the common-knowledge doctrine and therefore an expert is not required. After oral argument, the court agreed with our position that the underlying claims against our client involve complex commercial real estate closing standards, and environmental contamination effects on real property, and therefore do not fall under the common knowledge doctrine. As such, Third-Party Plaintiffs were required to demonstrate through expert testimony the duty and alleged breach that would be proximately connected to our client in her underlying representation. The court held that without an expert, Third-Party Plaintiffs were unable to make a prima facie case as to legal malpractice claims against our client, and dismissed our client with prejudice
Carl M. Perri
Marisa G. Michaelsen