N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TAE-SI KIM an d JIN-SUNG HONG, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. ADAM B . KEAR

N EY; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16311 D.C . No. 2:09-c v-02008-PM PGW F M EM O R ANDUM * Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Philip M . Pro, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 13, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

Z ON, B YB EE, a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nts Ta e -Si Kim

and Jin-Sung Hong a

p pe a l the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt for Appe lle e s R ic ha rd L. Toble r an d his la

w firm R ic ha rd L. Toble r, Ltd. in this Ne

va da c o m m on la w a c t ion for le ga l m a l pra c tic e and re late d



# FIL ED MAR 18 2015 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c la im s. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c o urt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt and its interpre tation of sta t e la w. G arc ia v . Pac i

fiC are of C a l., Inc . , 750 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th C ir. 2014). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt dismisse d Appe lla nts’ c la im s a s untim e ly

unde r Ne va da R e vise d Statute s § 11.207(1). This sta tute provide s, in re le v ant pa rt, tha t “ [a ] n a c tion a ga inst a

n attorne y . . . to re c ove r dam a g e s for m a lpra c tic e . . . m ust be c om m e n c e d within 4 y e ars a fte r the pla intiff sustai ns da m a ge or within 2 y e ars a fte r the pla intiff disc ove rs or through the use of re a sona

b le dilige nc e should ha

ve disc ove re d the m at e ria l fa c ts whic h c onstitute the c a use of a c tion, whic he ve r oc c urs e arlie r.” As a

n initial m atte r, Appe lla

nts a rgue tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by tre ating thetwo limita

tions pe riods a s disjunc tive ; tha t is, the y c onte nd tha

t the y m ust de m onstra

t e tha t the y c om plie d with e ithe r

the 2-y e a r or the 4-y e ar tim e lim ita tion, not both. This a

rgum e nt, howe v e r, is fore c lose d by the Ne va da Supre m e C ourt’ s re c e nt de c ision in Brady , Vorw e rc k

, Ry d e r & C a spino v . N

e w Albe rtson’s, Inc . , 333 P.3d 229, 233 (Nev. 2014) (e n ba n c ) (“ [T] he sta

tute pla c e s four-y e ar and two-y e ar tim e lim ita tions on a n attorne y m a lpra c tic e c la i m

. . . . The first tim e lim ita

tion to e xpire gove rns the tim e line ss of the m a lpra c tic e a c tion.” ).

2Appe lla nts ne xt c l a im

tha t the distric t

c ourt e rre d by

re je c ting the i r argum e nt that the y c om plie d with the4-y e ar tim e lim ita tion be c a use the y did not “ susta in[] dam a ge ” until Ada

m Ke arne y ’ s lia

bility wa s c onc lusive ly

a djudic ate d in Ja

nua ry 2011. Appe lla

nts a re c orre c t tha

t the Ne va da

Supre m e C ourt ha s he ld tha t

“ te rm ination of theunde rly ing proc e e dings [i] s c ritic a l in thec onte xt of a c la im of litiga tion ne glige nc e ,” but the y ignore the Ne va da

Supre m e C ourt’ s a d

m onition that suc h c a se s a

re “ ina pposite ” to a

c la im of “ transa c tiona l” m a lpra c tic e suc h a s the o ne at issuein this a

ppe a l. K opic k o v . Young , 971 P.2d 789, 791 n.3 (Ne v. 1998). In thec onte xt of tra n sa c tiona l m a lpra c t ic e , the Ne v a d a Supre m e C ourt ha s he ld tha t pla i ntiffs “ susta in[] dam a ge ” a s soon a s a wrongdoe r take s a dva nta ge of a ne glige ntly

dra fte d doc um e nt to a

bsc ond with the ir m o ne y . Se e C harle s on v . Harde sty , 839 P.2d 1303, 1307 (Ne v. 1992) (pe r c uriam ). B e c a use this oc c urre d, at the late st, in June2007 in this c a se — and Appe l la nts did not file the ir c la im s a ga inst Appe lle e s until Ja n ua ry 2012— the distric t c ourt c orre c tly c onc l ude d tha

t Appe l la n ts’ c la im s we re untim e ly . 1

1 Appe lla nts a lso a rgue tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d

in c onc luding tha

t the y did not pursue

the i r c la im s a ga inst Appe lle e s until they file d the ir se c ond a

m e nde d c om pla i nt in Ja

nua ry 2012. Ne ve rthe le ss, e ve n if the distric t c o urt ha d c onc lude d that the sta tute of lim ita

tions wa s tolle d whe n Appe lla nts sought le ave to a

m e nd in August 2011, the ir c la im s still would ha ve be e n untim e ly . 3Appe lla nts’ fina l a

rgum e nt is tha

t the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r wa s

“ ina ppropria t e ” be c a use its re a soning c onflic te d with a n e arlie r orde r gra

nting a diffe re nt a

ttorne y ’ s m otion to dism

iss. The re wa s nothing inc onsiste nt a bout the two orde rs. The e a

rlie r orde r involve d a

c l a im of litiga tiona l m a lpra c tic e while the orde r unde r re v i e w involve s a c la im of tra

nsa c tiona l m a lpra c tic e ; a s note d a bove , the N e va d a

Supre m e C ourt ha s he ld tha t suc h c la im s should betre ate d diffe re ntly . AFFIRM E D.

4