Blythe Holdings, Inc. v. DeAngelis

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-attorney and his law firm’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendants committed legal malpractice in connection with plaintiff’s failed attempt to acquire vacant city lots. While application submitted by defendants on behalf of plaintiff contained many errors, said errors did not prevent plaintiff from obtaining said lots, and plaintiff could have obtained said lots well after application had been submitted. Moreover, where application had to be approved by multiple entities, plaintiff failed to show that it would have been successful in obtaining said lots but for any alleged malpractice associated with drafting of application. Also, plaintiff could not recover $25,000 retainer fee from defendant law firm under unjust enrichment theory, where: (1) law firm never received $25,000 retainer check; and (2) unjust enrichment had no application where parties were subject to specific contract.