D.R. v. Contra Costa County CA
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:19-cv-07152
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In D. R. v. Contra Costa County CA, Judge Chesney granted Brian Stern’s dismissal motion on a legal-malpractice claim but allowed amendment.
The ruling directly affected the plaintiffs’ legal-malpractice claim against Brian Stern and allowed the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend that claim. The claims remaining in the Third Amended Complaint were not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In D. R. v. Contra Costa County CA, the plaintiffs sued Brian Stern, who had represented John Freeman in a juvenile dependency proceeding. They claimed Stern failed to advise Freeman about a voluntary process for establishing paternity.
Stern argued that California’s deadline for legal-malpractice claims had expired. The court found that the complaint did not explain how Freeman discovered the alleged problem on October 5, 2020, or why he could not have discovered it earlier with reasonable diligence.
The court granted Stern’s motion to dismiss but allowed the plaintiffs to amend the malpractice claim by April 22, 2022, without adding new claims unless the court gave permission. Judge Maxine M. Chesney stated that the case would otherwise proceed on the claims remaining in the complaint.
The detailed version
- D.R. v. Contra Costa County CA · No. 3:19-cv-07152
- Maxine Chesney
- Apr. 4, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint asserted one claim against Brian Stern: the Fifth Cause of Action for legal malpractice. The plaintiffs alleged that Stern represented John Freeman in a juvenile dependency proceeding and failed to advise or assist Freeman in obtaining paternity through the Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgment program.
Stern was appointed to represent Freeman on June 28, 2018. The representation ended on May 22, 2019, when the dependency proceeding was dismissed. The plaintiffs alleged that Freeman learned about the paternity-acknowledgment procedure on or about October 5, 2020.
Motion and Analysis
Stern moved to dismiss under California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.6, which sets deadlines for claims against attorneys arising from professional services. The statute requires such an action to be filed within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the facts constituting the alleged wrongful act, or within four years after the act, whichever comes first.
The court held that the complaint did not state a timely claim. It did not include facts explaining how Freeman discovered the program on or about October 5, 2020, or why he could not reasonably have discovered it before then. The court explained that, when a complaint appears to show that a claim is untimely, the plaintiff must specifically plead when and how the claim was discovered and why earlier discovery was not reasonably possible.
The court also granted Stern’s unopposed request for judicial notice of specified state-court records for purposes of determining when he represented Freeman. Judicial notice allows a court to consider certain public records without requiring the parties to prove those records as ordinary evidence.
Ruling
The court granted Stern’s motion to dismiss. It allowed the plaintiffs to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to amend the Fifth Cause of Action by April 22, 2022. The plaintiffs could not add new claims without first obtaining the court’s permission. If they did not timely amend, the action would proceed on the claims remaining in the Third Amended Complaint. Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.