Cecala v. Newman, No. CV 04-02612-PHX-NVW.
| Court | United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | Neil V. Wake |
| Citation | 532 F.Supp.2d 1118 |
| Parties | Renee CECALA, Plaintiff, v. David B. NEWMAN; Cooperman Levitt Winikoff Lester & Newman, P.C., Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 02 May 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 04-02612-PHX-NVW. |
v.
David B. NEWMAN; Cooperman Levitt Winikoff Lester & Newman, P.C., Defendants.
Page 1119
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1120
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1121
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1122
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1123
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1124
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1125
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1126
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1127
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1128
Kraig J. Marton, David N. Farren, Jaburg & Wilk PC, Phoenix, AZ; for Plaintiff
Brian Holohan, Brian Holohan Ltd., Phoenix, AZ, foe Defendants.
NEIL V. WAKE, District Judge.
Table of Contents
I. Factual Background ............................................................1129
A. NationsBank ...............................................................1130
1. The Underlying Employment Dispute .....................................1130
2. Retaining Lawyer Newman ...............................................1130
3. Mitigation of Damages .................................................1130
4. Litigation Strategy ...................................................1131
B. NASD Arbitration ..........................................................1131
C. Cecala's Relationship with Newman .........................................1132
D. Malpractice Litigation ....................................................1132
II. Summary Judgment Standard .....................................................1132
III. Legal Malpractice in Arizona ..................................................1133
A. Two Theories of Malpractice Liability .....................................1133
B. A Prima Facie Case ........................................................1134
1. Cognizable Injury .....................................................1134
2. Attorney. Negligence Malpractice .....................................1134
3. Fiduciary Breach Malpractice ..........................................1134
C. Trial Methodology .........................................................1134
D. Causation .................................................................1135
1. "But-For" Causation ...................................................1136
2. Proximate Causation and Foreseeability of the Injury ..................1137
3. But-For Causation and Proximate Causation in Litigation
Malpractice .........................................................1138
i. Subversion of the But-For Causation Requirement ..................1138
ii. The Judgment Error Rule, Speculativeness, and Lack of
Foreseeability .................................................1139
4. Fiduciary Breach Malpractice ..........................................1140
IV. Cecala's Second Amended Complaint .............................................1140
V. Negligent Supervision .........................................................1141
VI. Statute of Limitations ........................................................1142
A. The Amfac Cases: Errors in Litigation .....................................1142
B. Amfac Does Not Apply to Non-Litigation Injury .............................1143
C. "Unsound Mind" Tolling Does Not Apply .....................................1144
Page 1129
1. The Meaning of "Unsound Mind" .........................................1144
2. Quantum of Evidence to Defeat Summary Judgment ........................1144
3. Insufficient Evidence of Inability to Understand Legal Rights .........1146
4. Insufficient Evidence of Inability to Manage Daily Affairs ............1147
i. Expert Affidavits ...............................................1148
a. Dr. Rutter .................................................1148
b. Dr. Harrison ...............................................1148
c. Dr. Wilson .................................................1149
ii. Declarations of Family and Friends ..............................1149
a. 1999 ........................................................1150
b. 2000 ........................................................1150
c. 2001 .......................................................1151
d. 2002 ........................................................1151
iii. Rule 56(e) Declarations .........................................1151
5. Conclusion ............................................................1152
D. Equitable Tolling Is Unwarranted ..........................................1153
VII. Causation .....................................................................1153
A. Cecala's Theory of Causation Is Insufficient ..............................1153
B. Procedural Issues .........................................................1155
1. Newman Carried His Initial Burden under Rule 56(c) ....................1155
2. Cecala's Supplemental Expert Affidavit Was Untimely ...................1156
C. Causation Evidence from Elliot's Affidavits ...............................1158
1. Newman's "Ineffective Representation" .................................1158
2. Improper Selection of and Hostile Attitude Toward the NASD
Arbitrators .........................................................1159
3. Inadequate Discovery: Failure to File with the EEOC ...................1160
4. Loss of a Procedural Advantage: Foregoing Litigation ..................1161
5. Termination of the Representation .....................................1162
D. Other Evidence of Causation ...............................................1163
1. Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment Claim ......................1163
2. Disparate Treatment Claim .............................................1164
3. Evidence of Litigation Injury from Sexual Relationship ................1164
VIII. Failure to Assert Retaliation .................................................1165
A. Retaliatory Acts ..........................................................1165
B. Constructive Discharge ....................................................1166
1. Prima Fade Case for Constructive Discharge ............................1167
2. The Omitted Allegation of Constructive Discharge Is Not
Economically Viable .................................................1168
C. Failure to Mitigate .......................................................1169
D. Lost Opportunity to Recover Nominal Damages at a Net Loss to the
Client Is Not Actionable Malpractice ....................................1169
Pending before the court are Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of Facts, as amended ("DSOF") (Doc. ## 171, 172, 246); Plaintiffs Response and Statement of Facts, as amended ("PSOF") (Doc. ## 193, 188, 220); and Defendants' Reply (Doc. # 206).
Also before the court are Plaintiff's Notice of Filing (Doc. # 224) and Defendants' Motion to Strike Cecala Declaration and Elliot Supplemental Affidavit (Doc. # 227). The court has reviewed the parties' supplemental memoranda (Doc. ## 228, 229, 230) and the responses thereto (Doc. ## 236, 237, 238).
I. Factual Background
Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, the admissible evidence shows the following.
Page 1130
A. NationsBank
This is an action for legal malpractice arising out of an employment dispute between Plaintiff Renee Cecala ("Cecala") and her former employer, NationsBank ("Bank"), now Bank of America. Cecala began working for NationsBank in Charlotte, North Carolina in June 1994. (PSOF 19-20; DSOF Ex. 3, 4.) Cecala worked at various times in the capital markets, mortgage financing, and mortgage sales divisions of the Bank. (PSOF 19-20.)
1. The Underlying Employment Dispute
Cecala contends that NationsBank discriminated against her because of her sex. (Id. at 20.) She "was not compensated fairly, compared to others similarly situated at the Bank, and at other like institutions," and was denied promotions and deprived of human resources by Bank management. (Id. at 20-23; Ex. 18 at 2.) Cecala believes that she "flourished and even fostered growth and prosperity within two distinct departments" despite the "woefully inadequate support and resources she received." (Id. Ex 18 at 2.) In addition to general underpayment and lack of resources, Cecala alleges that she was "victimized by sexual harassment [and] a hostile work environment" at NationsBank. (Doc. # 193 at 3; PSOF 23-24.) The Bank's "oppressive and hostile work environment ... caused her great physical and emotional distress." (Id. Ex. 18 at 2.)
From 1994 through 1996, Cecala lodged complaints with senior Bank management about "compensation, promotions, and resources," but NationsBank did not address her concerns. (Id. at 21.)
2. Retaining Lawyer Newman
In January 1997, Cecala hired New York attorney David B. Newman of the law firm of Cooperman Levitt Winikoff Lester & Newman, P.C. ("Cooperman Levitt"), to represent her in negotiations with Nations-Bank. (Doc. # 171 at 3.) Newman sent a letter to the president of NationsBank Capital Markets on February 20, 1997, briefly describing Cecala's concerns and expressing his desire "to discuss this matter with you with the hope of resolving these issues short of further legal action." (DSOF Ex. 5.) The Bank replied: "We view this is an internal matter and will work with Ms. Cecala to address any concerns she may have." (Id. Ex. 6.)
Bank officials did meet with Cecala on several occasions. (DSOF Ex. 1, R00368-72 (arbitration transcript hereinafter referenced by Bates number).) In an effort to resolve Cecala's allegations of gender discrimination, the Bank promised her a "meaningful role" in the mortgage finance department, and offered a $10,000 increase in compensation to match her alleged male comparator. (RC-00370.) Cecala refused the offer as unresponsive to her concerns, unreasonable, and unfair. (RC-00371.) Cecala alleges...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. CV 11–76–M–CCL.
...on whether the legal issues are ones on which the movant or the non-movant would bear the burden of proof at trial.” Cecala v. Newman, 532 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1132–33 (D.Ariz.2007). If the moving party has the burden of proof at trial, that party must carry its initial burden at summary judgmen......
-
Rodriguez v. City of Fresno, No. CV F 09–CV–1176 AWI MJS.
...on whether the legal issues are ones on which the movant or the non-movant would bear the burden of proof at trial.” Cecala v. Newman, 532 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1132–1133 (D.Ariz.2007). When the moving party has the burden of proof at trial, that party must carry its initial burden at summary jud......
-
Cotta v. Cnty. of Kings, No. 1:13–cv–359–LJO–SMS.
...carries the ultimate burden of proof. See Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir.2007) ; Cecala v. Newman, 532 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1132 (D.Ariz.2007). If the movant will have the burden of proof at trial, it must demonstrate, with affirmative evidence, that “no reasonabl......
-
Kaufman v. Jesser, No. CV–12–459–PHX–LOA.
...in a reasonably careful [884 F.Supp.2d 952]and skillful manner in light of his special professional knowledge.' ” Cecala v. Newman, 532 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1134 (D.Ariz.2007) (quoting Martin v. Burns, 102 Ariz. 341, 343, 429 P.2d 660, 662 (Ariz.1967)). “Although held to standards of care and lo......
-
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. CV 11–76–M–CCL.
...on whether the legal issues are ones on which the movant or the non-movant would bear the burden of proof at trial.” Cecala v. Newman, 532 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1132–33 (D.Ariz.2007). If the moving party has the burden of proof at trial, that party must carry its initial burden at summary judgmen......
-
Rodriguez v. City of Fresno, No. CV F 09–CV–1176 AWI MJS.
...on whether the legal issues are ones on which the movant or the non-movant would bear the burden of proof at trial.” Cecala v. Newman, 532 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1132–1133 (D.Ariz.2007). When the moving party has the burden of proof at trial, that party must carry its initial burden at summary jud......
-
Cotta v. Cnty. of Kings, No. 1:13–cv–359–LJO–SMS.
...carries the ultimate burden of proof. See Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir.2007) ; Cecala v. Newman, 532 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1132 (D.Ariz.2007). If the movant will have the burden of proof at trial, it must demonstrate, with affirmative evidence, that “no reasonabl......
-
Kaufman v. Jesser, No. CV–12–459–PHX–LOA.
...in a reasonably careful [884 F.Supp.2d 952]and skillful manner in light of his special professional knowledge.' ” Cecala v. Newman, 532 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1134 (D.Ariz.2007) (quoting Martin v. Burns, 102 Ariz. 341, 343, 429 P.2d 660, 662 (Ariz.1967)). “Although held to standards of care and lo......