N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL L. SM ITH, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JOR DAN R AM IS, PC ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-55391 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-02025-W -RB B
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia T hom a s J. W

he la n, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 5, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, WARDLAW , an d HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. M ic ha e l Sm ith a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra n t of sum m a ry judgm e nt in favor of Jorda

n R am is, P.C . a

nd Dougla s C ushing for c la im s of le ga l m a lpra c tic e ,



# FIL ED
MAR 30 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).fraud, a

nd m isre pre s e ntat ion. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291,
and we a ffirm
. Sm ith’ s le ga l m a lpra c tic e c la im s a re ba rre d by the sta tute of lim i tations. B a se d on the re c ord, Sm ith disc ove re d “ the fa c ts c onstituting the wrongful a c t” in 2010. C a l. C iv. Proc . C ode § 340.6(a ). Sm ith disc usse d his le ga l m a lpra c tic e
c la im m u ltiple tim e s with his new la w y e r a s e arly

a s April or M ay

2010. And Sm i th no doubt had disc ove re d the a lle g e d le ga l m a lpra c tic e by

August 2010 whe

n he e m a ile d C u shing to c om pla in a bout “ how va gue and ba dly the [Dom e stic Partne rship Agre e m e nt (DPA)] wa s writte n .” B e c a use Sm ith did not file

his suit until June 2012, his le ga l m a lpra c tic e c l a im s a re ba rre d by the sta tute of lim ita tions. The one -y e ar statute of lim ita tions is not tolle d unde r the “ a c tua l injury ”
e xc e ption. Se e C a l. C iv. Proc . C ode § 340.6(a )(1). Sm i th susta ine d a c t ua l injury in De c e m be r 2010, whe n his dom e stic pa rtne r m ounte d

an “ obje c t ive ly

via ble de fe nse ,” J

ordac heEnte r

s., Inc . v . Brobe c k

, Phle ge r & Harrison , 958 P.2d 1062, 1065 (C a l. 1998), a

nd Fe brua

ry 2011, whe n his dom e s tic pa rtne r form a l ly

m ove d to inva lida

te the DPA. B oth e ve nts inc re a se d Sm ith’ s c osts to litiga te and re duc e d the s e ttle m e nt va lue , a

nd both oc c urre d ove r a

y e ar be fore the filing of this suit.

2The one -y e ar statute of lim ita tions is also not tolle d by

the c ontinuity

of
re pre se ntation e xc e ption. Se e C a l. C iv. Proc . C ode § 340.6(a )(2). The “ m utua l
re lationship”be twe e n Sm i th a nd Jorda n R a m is e nde d with Sm ith’ s August 20, 2010 e m a il in whic h

he e xpre sse d e xtre m e dissa tisfa c t ion a

nd re fuse d to pa

y . Se e W orthington v. Rusc oni , 35 C a l. R ptr. 2d 169, 174 (C t . App. 1994). Tha t Sm ith did not e xpre ssly t e rm inate C ushing a s his a ttorne y is not dispositive
. Se e Shape r o
v . Flie ge l , 236 C a l. R

ptr. 696, 699–700 (C t. App. 1987). T h e April 2011 te le phone
c a lls do not e sta

blish a c o n tinuous re lationship be c a use the se c a lls we re not in furthe ran c e of the attorne y -c lie nt re lationship. Se e Fox b orough v

. Van Atta , 31 C a l. R ptr. 2d 525, 528–29 (C t. App. 1994). Sm ith’ s re m a ining c la im s of fra ud a nd de c e it, fra

udule nt c onc e a l m e nt, a

nd
ne glige nt m isre p re se n tation la c k m e rit. Unde r C a lifornia

la w, ne glige nt m isre pre s e ntation is “ a spe c ie s of the tort of de c e it,” and sha

re s the sam e e le m e nts. B.L.M. v . Sabo &De itsc h , 64 C a l. R ptr. 2d 335, 347 (C t. App. 1997). The e le m e nts of fra

ud a n d de c e it a

re : “ (1) a
m isre pre se ntation of a pa s t or e xisting mate ria l fa c t, (2) without re a s ona b le grounds for be lie ving it to be true , (3) with inte nt to induc e an othe r’ s re lia nc e on the fa c t m isre pre se nte d, (4) ignora nc e of the truth a

nd justifia ble re lia nc e the re on

3by

the pa rty to whom the m i sre pre se ntation wa s dire c t e d, a nd (5) da m a ge s.” Id. at 342 (quoting Fox

v . Pollac k

, 226 C a l. R

ptr. 532, 537 (C t. App. 1986)). The undispute d

fa c ts e s ta blish tha t C ushing did not m

ake any
m isre pre se ntations to Sm ith whe n he a gre e d to dra ft the DPA. C ushing told Sm i th that C ushing c ould do the work, tha t he ha d a c c e s s to C a lifornia la w, a nd tha t Jorda n R am is ha d a

n attorne y who wa s lic e nse d to pra c tic e in C a lifornia . Sm ith fa ile d to prove tha

t a ny of the se sta

te m e nts we re untrue . Additionally , be c a use C ushing ha d pre viously

pre p a re d pre m arita l a g re e m e nts a nd one dom e stic pa rtne rship a g re e m e n t in Ore gon, he ha d “ re a sona ble grounds for be lie ving [the se sta te m e nts] to be true . ” Id . The re is no e vide nc e tha t C u shing inten tiona l ly induc e d Sm ith into re ly ing on a ny a lle ge d m isre pre se n tations, or tha t Sm ith re lie d to his de trim e nt on suc h

m isre pre se ntations. Thus, Sm ith is una ble to prove the first four e l e m e nts of fra

ud, de c e it, a

nd ne glige nt m isre pre se ntation. To prove fra

udule nt c onc e a lm e nt, Sm ith m ust simila rly show tha t: “ (1) the de fe nda n t . . . c onc e a le d or suppre sse d a m ate ria l fa c t , (2) the de fe n da n t [wa s] unde r a duty to disc lose the fa c t to thepla intiff, (3) the de fe n da nt . . . inte ntiona lly
c onc e a l e d or suppre sse d the fa c t with theinte nt to de frau d the pla intiff, (4) the pla i ntiff [wa s] una

ware of the fa c t a

nd would not ha

ve a c te d a s he did if he ha d known of thec onc e a le d or suppre sse d fa c t, a nd (5) a s a

re sult of thec onc e a l m e nt 4or suppre ssion of the fa c t, the pla intiff m ust ha v e susta ine d da

m a ge . ” Prak ashpalan v . Engstrom, Lipsc omb & Lac k, 167 C a l. R ptr. 3d 832, 853 (C t. App. 2014) (quoting Mk

t . W ., Inc . v . Sany o Fishe r (USA) C orp. , 7 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 859, 864 (C t. App. 1992). The re c ord doe s not support the third e le m e nt of fra

udule nt c onc e a l m e nt: inte nt to de fraud. The e vide nc e doe s not e sta blish tha t C u s hing inte ntiona lly
c onc e a l e d the qua lific ations of theC a l ifornia -lic e nse d attorne y with theinte nt to de fraud Sm ith. In fa c t, Sm i th a dm i tte d tha t his de c ision to hire

C ushing a

n d Jorda n R am is ste m

m e d from C ushing’ s pre vious work ha ndling Smith’ s will a

nd LLC , a nd be c a use C ushing wa s Sm ith’ s unc le
. Sm ith him se lf sta te d tha t the re

“ wa sn’ t any m o re thought tha

n tha t.” AFFIRM E D.

5