Legal Malpractice

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Carlos G. Rocah v. J. Gordon Rudd, Jr. et al

Case No.: 15-1538

Officials: KANNE, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges

Focus: Legal Malpractice

Appellant arguments for legal malpractice rife with conclusory statements of wrongdoing without stating plausible claims for relief.

“Regarding whether a complaint states a plausible claim of relief, the Supreme Court has articulated a two‐pronged approach in which a court: (1) first identifies the well‐ pleaded factual allegations by discarding the pleadings that are “no more than conclusions” and (2) then determines whether the remaining well‐pleaded factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Here, after discarding all conclusory statements of wrongdoing, it appears that Rocha’s proposed second amended complaint merely alleges the following: that De‐ fendants engaged in fraud during communication with Ro‐ cha between June and August 2012 regarding the terms of the Fluegel settlement. (Pl.’s Proposed Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 140–53.) Not only do Rocha’s claims fail to “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief,” but they are completely undercut by his own pleadings and exhibits, which establish Defendants’ honest and clear presentation of the settlement terms, including FedEx’s requirement for release of all claims by individuals and associated corporations. (Id. ¶¶ 140–53, Exs. A, B, C, D, E, G, H).  “

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.