Legal Malpractice

Yet Another Lake Front Property and Legal Malpractice

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

Keeping in mind the biblical aphorism that certain things come in threes, we report on a second lake front legal malpractice case.  This one is ZAVALIDROGA,  -v.-  COTE,  JOHN DOE, DORIS M. KELLEY, JAMES E. KELLEY, DAVID LAPLANTE, individually and officially as an Oneida County Sheriff's deputy, GREGORY J. AMOROSO, individually and officially, TOWN OF ANNSVILLE, a municipal entity.

Well, perhaps it is not a lake but rather a pond.  "After the Zavalindrogas' neighbors successfully sued in state court for rights to a pond and adjacent property, the Zavalindrogas brought the current federal action against their neighbors, their own and their neighbors' attorneys in the state court action, two state court judges, a Sheriff's deputy, and the Town of Annsville, alleging a "state-sponsored scheme" to convey the Zavalindrogas' property to their neighbors."

"As to the other appellees, HN3this Court reviews de novo a district court decision dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (b)(6). See Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (Rule 12(b)(1)); [*5] Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002) (Rule 12(b)(6)). In each instance, this Court "constru[es] the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Chambers, 282 F.3d at 152; see also Triestman, 470 F.3d at 474.

HN4A district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim, so long as the plaintiff is given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Wachtler v. County of Herkimer, 35 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 1994). Further, HN5we may "affirm a decision on any grounds supported in the record, even if it is not one on which the trial court relied." Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 460 F.3d 400, 405 (2d Cir. 2006)."

"Finally, because the District Court properly dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the District Court did not err by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Zavalidrogas' state law legal malpractice claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)."
 

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on October 13, 2010 (boomark / email).