Legal Opinion
Connelly v. Bornstein
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Decided March 28, 2019No. A152375PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSimons, J.
*788Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, subdivision (a) (hereafter, section 340.6(a) ),1 imposes a one-year statute of limitations for "[a]n action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services." Courts of Appeal have divided over whether this provision governs malicious prosecution claims against attorneys. We conclude that it does.
BACKGROUND2
In July 2012, Elizabeth Maguire brought an unlawful detainer action against appellant Joseph Connelly. Maguire was represented by attorney Daniel Bornstein, a partner…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Lee v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
- Laird v. BlackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Parrish v. Latham & WatkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Acres Bonusing, Inc v. MarstonDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022
- Area 55 v. Nicholas & TomasevicCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
- Area 55 v. Nicholas & Tomasevic CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Ceron v. LiuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
- Escamilla v. VannucciCalifornia Supreme Court · 2025
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.