Statute of Limitations

Geraci v. Cramer

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished decision, the Fifth District affirmed the dismissal of claims against attorneys.  Many of the claims were dismissed because they were time barred.   The court focused on the fact that the statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff has sufficient information to be on inquiry notice that he might have a claim.   Other claims were dismissed because an attorney hired by a condominium association did not have an attorney client relationship with or owe a duty to the individual members of the association.

Geraci v. Cramer

 

Pastry Partners, Inc. v. Greenswag

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished opinion, the First District affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the defendants on statute of limitations grounds.   The court held that the plaintiff knew of its injury before an adverse judgment was entered against it and that the statute began to run before the judgment was entered.   The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments based upon equitable tolling, equitable estoppel and judicial estoppel.

Pastry Partners, Inc. v. Greenswag, 2016 IL App (1st) 152259-U

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)

Stevens v. Sharif

Posted on Updated on

The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against a lawyer, in part, because she failed to allege the existence of an attorney client relationship.   The fact that the plaintiff was represented by other counsel made it implausible that the defendant lawyer represented her.   The court further held that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.   The claim accrued when the underlying bankruptcy court made its initial decision; accrual did not depend upon the result of the subsequent appeal.

Stevens v. Sharif, No. 15 C 1405, 2017 WL 449175 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2, 2017)

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)

Milan v. Korein

Posted on Updated on

The Southern District of Illinois dismissed malpractice claims against a client’s first set of lawyers as time barred because the allegations in the complaint revealed that the client knew of his claims more than two years prior to filing suit. However, the plaintiff’s malpractice claims against his replacement attorneys were not dismissed; the court gave the pro se plaintiff leeway in pleading a malpractice claim based on allegations that the replacement lawyers pressured him to settle the underlying suit.

Milan v. Korein, Case No. 15-cv-0747-MJR-DGW, 2016 WL 7230394 (S.D. Ill Dec. 14, 2016)

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)

Recent Illinois Case: Rockford Structures Const. Co. v. Shriver

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished order, the Second District affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice claim pursuant to the statute of limitations.

A law firm filed a complaint to recover fees from its client. After that case had been pending for some time, the client attempted to file a legal malpractice counterclaim. The trial court denied the client leave to file the counterclaim. The client then attempted to file a stand-alone malpractice complaint. By the time of that filing, the complaint was untimely under the two year statute of limitations.

The Appellate Court rejected the client’s argument that Section 13-207 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, which allows an untimely counterclaim, saves an untimely complaint that the plaintiff originally attempted to file as a counterclaim.

Rockford Structures Const. Co. v. Shriver, 2016 IL App (2d) 160151-U

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)

 

Recent Illinois Case: White v. Richert

Posted on Updated on

The Northern District of Illinois refused to dismiss a claim on the basis of a release given by a client to her lawyer because the complaint alleged that the release was void because it resulted from the lawyer’s breach of her fiduciary duties.

The court also refused to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds because there were factual issues regarding when the statute began to run.

White v. Richert, 2016 WL 3582083.

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)

Recent Illinois Case: Uppal v. Welch

Posted on

The pro se plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim was dismissed due to the two year statute of limitations. Plaintiff knew of should have known of her claim more than two years prior to filing suit and no tolling doctrine applied.

Uppal v. Welch, 2016 WL 2909652

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)