Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03336/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03336-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dan Near
Defendant
John Parlante
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN PARLANTE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAN NEAR,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-03336 CW

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

On July 21, 2009, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in

forma pauperis and a complaint asserting a claim of legal

malpractice on the ground that Defendant had failed to file a

notice of appeal on Plaintiff's behalf. On October 19, 2009, the

Court issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Complaint With Leave to Amend in

which it held that Plaintiff’s sparse allegations failed to state a

malpractice clam and that, in an amended complaint, Plaintiff must

describe “the case in which he alleges a notice of appeal should

have been filed, the ruling he wished to appeal, to whom should the

appeal have been made, and that, but for Defendants’ error,

Plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result.” The Court

also instructed Plaintiff to address the statute of limitations for

a legal malpractice claim, and if the complaint was filed outside

the limitations period, to address the application of equitable

tolling.

On November 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint

(FAC) and a motion for reinstatement, asking the Court to accept

the filing of the FAC and to seal confidential documents. In his

Case 4:09-cv-03336-CW Document 9 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

FAC, Plaintiff addresses all the issues raised in the October 19,

2009 Order. Plaintiff alleges that in 2003, Defendant represented

him in a criminal case for a misdemeanor violation of California

Penal Code § 273A(B), causing willful harm or injury to a child. 

As a result of his conviction, Plaintiff was incarcerated for sixty

days. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal himself when he was

released from jail, but it was untimely. Plaintiff alleges that,

but for Defendant’s breach of his duty to file a notice of appeal,

Plaintiff would have received favorable post judgment relief in his

underlying case in the form of an overturned conviction. 

Plaintiff alleges that equitable tolling applies because he was

representing himself in a child dependency case that occurred as a

direct result of Defendant’s malpractice. The dependency case is

currently pending before the California Supreme Court and is

expected to be final by December 20, 2009. Plaintiff alleges that

he “suffers a legal disability that would not permit him to file a

complaint any earlier than after responses to Respondents brief

were taken care of.” 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.6(a) governs the

statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions, rendering two

distinct and alternative limitation periods: one year after actual

or constructive discovery of the facts constituting the wrongful

act or omission, or four years after the date of the wrongful act

or omission, whichever occurs first. Samuels v. Mix, 22 Cal. 4th

1, 5 (1999). 

Plaintiff does not dispute that his legal malpractice claim

was filed outside the statutory time period. Therefore, for his

claim to be viable, tolling must apply.

Case 4:09-cv-03336-CW Document 9 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Under § 340.6(a), "[i]n no event shall the time for

commencement of legal action exceed four years except that the

period shall be tolled during the time that any of the following

exist": 1) the plaintiff has not sustained actual injury; 2) the

attorney continues to represent the plaintiff regarding the

specific subject matter in which the alleged wrongful act occurred;

(3) the attorney willfully conceals the facts constituting the

wrongful act or omission when such facts are known to the attorney;

or (4) the plaintiff is under a legal or physical disability that

prevents the plaintiff from commencing legal action. Cal. Code of

Civ. Pro. § 340.6(a). 

The California Supreme Court has held that "the Legislature

expressly intended to disallow tolling under any circumstances not

enumerated in [§ 340.6(a)]." Laird v. Blacker, 2 Cal. 4th 606, 618

(1992). Following the Laird decision, many California appellate

courts have also held that the tolling provisions contained in 

§ 340.6(a) are exclusive because the statutory language, "in no

event shall the time for legal action exceed four years" except

under those circumstances enumerated therein, expresses the

Legislature's intent to disallow tolling under any other

circumstances. Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Brobek, Phleger &

Harrison, 18 Cal. 4th 739, 758 (1998); People ex rel. Dep't of

Corporations v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc., 95 Cal. App. 4th

709, 725 (2002).

Plaintiff alleges that tolling under § 340.6(a)(4) applies

because he was under a legal disability due to his selfrepresentation in a child dependency case which required his

"continuous court involvement." In Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo, 25

Case 4:09-cv-03336-CW Document 9 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Cal. 4th 1194, 1209 (2001), the court indicated that tolling for

legal disability required that the plaintiff be prevented from

filing suit by circumstances beyond his control, such as minority,

mental illness or incarceration. Plaintiff's allegation that he

was prevented from filing suit due to his involvement in another

lawsuit does not rise to these levels of incapacitation. 

Furthermore, even if a plaintiff is incarcerated, the tolling

period is only two years. See Cal. Code Civ. Pro. 

§ 352.1. Here, Plaintiff was immediately aware of Defendant's

failure to file the notice of appeal because he filed a notice of

appeal himself as soon as he was released from jail. Thus,

Plaintiff's claim accrued sometime in 2003 and, to be timely, his

malpractice complaint should have been filed sometime in 2004. 

Plaintiff filed this complaint in 2009, five years beyond the

limitations period. 

The Court concludes that the tolling provisions of 

§ 340.6(a)(4) do not apply to this case. Thus, Plaintiff's

complaint must be dismissed because it is untimely. This dismissal

is without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. 

However, dismissal under the in forma pauperis statute does not

foreclose the filing of a paid complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-03336-CW Document 9 Filed 02/10/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN PARLANTE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAN NEAR et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-03336 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on February 10, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

John Parlante

1920 Windview Ct

Reno, NV 89523

Dated: February 10, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Ronnie Hersler, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-03336-CW Document 9 Filed 02/10/10 Page 5 of 5