Friday, December 9, 2022

Legal Malpractice Claim Found to be Barred By Statute of Limitations

In the case of Am. Mushroom Coop. v. Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, LLP, No. March Term, 2020 No. 02211 (C.P. Phila. Co. Aug. 17, 2022 Padilla, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting that the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirm the trial court's previous Order granting a Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in a legal malpractice claim.

The court found that the claims presented by the Plaintiff in this action were barred by the statute of limitations.

After reviewing the record before it, the court held that the Plaintiffs’ malpractice claims were time-barred since the Plaintiff first knew or should have known that they had been allegedly injured by allegedly erroneously legal advice back in 2004.

The case revolved around the Plaintiff’s execution of a consent judgment in a Department of Justice investigation of the business practices of the Plaintiff that were purportedly based upon the same legal advice.

As noted, the court found that the Plaintiff’s claims were time-barred and entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Defendant law firm.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 29, 2022).

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.