Page v. Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP

Background

Joseph Page, representing himself, sued Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP and five lawyers at the firm. The dispute arose from a merger involving Page’s blockchain ideas and patent applications. According to the opinion, the firm was hired to assist with the merger and review the patent applications. After the company failed to raise money and Page left, the company discovered problems with the applications and sued Page and the firm. Page then sued the firm, alleging misconduct.

Page had previously sued the firm over the same dispute. In that earlier case, the court held that his claims were barred by a three-year time limit because the facts supporting the legal-malpractice claim arose before the merger. The court dismissed the suit with prejudice. Page appealed, arguing that the firm had engaged in misconduct after the merger. The appeals court rejected that argument, holding that his claims arose solely from the firm’s actions connected to the reverse merger, which closed on June 27, 2018. It also affirmed the denial of Page’s request to amend his complaint.

Current lawsuit and arguments

Page’s new complaint asserted substantially the same claims. The court ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed or reassigned to the judge who handled the earlier case.

Page argued that the current case concerned only conduct after the merger, while the earlier case concerned only conduct before the merger. He also argued that the new defendants were different and that dismissing the case would effectively approve misconduct that occurred during the earlier litigation.

The court rejected each argument. It said Page had raised post-merger conduct in the earlier case, including in his appeal. The court also held that Page could not avoid claim preclusion—the rule barring a party from bringing the same claim again after losing an earlier case—by recasting disagreements about the earlier litigation as new misconduct claims. The court further held that an attorney’s failure to correct an alleged legal error does not extend the time limit for filing a claim.

The addition of five lawyers did not change the result. The court found that their alleged conduct was intertwined with the firm’s conduct and that Page did not argue he was unaware of their involvement. It held that the same claims against them were barred for the same reasons: claim preclusion and the statute of limitations, meaning the deadline for filing the claims.

Motion to strike

Page asked the court to strike the firm’s response to the order to show cause because the response was allegedly late and exceeded the page limit. The court denied that motion. It accepted the firm’s explanation that the filing was four minutes late because of a problem with an outside vendor and noted that the firm had served Page with a copy within the deadline. The court also concluded that striking the response would only delay resolution of issues already addressed.

Disposition

The court dismissed all of Page’s claims with prejudice and denied his motion to strike. It directed the clerk to terminate Dockets 4 and 12 and close the case.