AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff filed a complaint for legal malpractice against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant's failure became apparent only after obtaining a training manual which made a claim against Allsup's viable. The Plaintiff argued that the statute of limitations for the legal malpractice claim should not have begun until he knew the claim against Allsup's was viable.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the statute of limitations for his legal malpractice claim could not have begun until he was aware that the claim against Allsup's was viable, which was only after obtaining a specific training manual.
• Defendant: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the statute of limitations for a legal malpractice claim begins when the plaintiff becomes aware of the viability of the underlying claim.

Disposition

• The district court's order dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint for legal malpractice as barred by the statute of limitations was affirmed.
• The Plaintiff's motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Megan P. Duffy, affirmed the district court's decision. The Court found that the Plaintiff's motion to amend the docketing statement was unnecessary because the Court considers additional facts and arguments in support of an issue originally raised without requiring an amendment to the docketing statement (para 2). The Plaintiff's argument that the statute of limitations should not have begun until he knew the claim against Allsup's was viable was not persuasive. The Court referenced previous case law indicating that a party opposing a proposed disposition must clearly point out errors in fact or law, and merely repeating earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement (para 3). The request to reassign the case to the general calendar was also denied, as the case did not present an issue of first impression (para 4).