Profitt v. Tauches

Background

Marvin Profitt, representing himself, sued his former attorney, Jason Tauches, for alleged professional negligence in handling an appeal after Profitt’s conviction on five counts related to several felony and misdemeanor driving-under-the-influence charges. Profitt alleged that Tauches failed to present two due-process claims to the California Supreme Court: one concerning the alleged failure to preserve video evidence and conduct a sobriety test in front of a patrol car’s camera, and another concerning the alleged failure to provide the defense with the name and address of a police employee before a suppression motion was filed or litigated.

Profitt later filed a federal petition challenging his conviction. An earlier federal court order dismissed that petition with leave to amend because it included claims that had not been presented to the California Supreme Court. Profitt removed the two unexhausted claims and later received a denial of the amended petition in January 2020. He sought $169,200 in compensatory damages and $507,600 in punitive damages.

Motion and Arguments

Tauches moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that California’s statute of limitations for attorney-malpractice claims barred the action. The opinion states that California law generally requires such an action to be filed within one year after the client discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission, or within four years of the act or omission, whichever comes first.

Profitt argued that the claim accrued when his federal petition was denied on January 15, 2020, because that was when he suffered the definitive injury. He also argued that the deadline was tolled under California’s continuing-representation provision because Tauches had not completed all required tasks.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Profitt knew, or should have known, about the alleged failure to present the two claims no later than June 21, 2018, when the earlier federal court informed him that the claims had not been presented to the California Supreme Court. The court also noted that Tauches had told Profitt on November 30, 2017, that the attorney-client relationship had ended and that he had completed the tasks for which he had been retained.

The court rejected the continuing-representation argument because the documents attached to Profitt’s complaint showed that the relationship had ended. It also rejected Profitt’s argument that the limitations period began only when the amended federal petition was denied in January 2020. Relying on California law, the court stated that the period begins when the fact of damage, rather than the amount of damage, is determined. The court held that this occurred no later than June 21, 2018.

Disposition

The one-year limitations period therefore expired on June 21, 2019, but Profitt filed his complaint on January 8, 2021. The court found no applicable tolling provision and concluded that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. It granted Tauches’s motion and dismissed Profitt’s complaint with prejudice.