Rocha v. Rudd

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state cause of action, plaintiff’s legal malpractice and fraud claims against defendants-former legal counsel, who represented plaintiff in class action until plaintiff terminated defendants and filed successful motion for voluntary dismissal shortly before settlement in class action had been finalized. Plaintiff could not assert legal malpractice claim where, at time he terminated defendants, he still had viable claim (and right to re-file said claim) in action that was subject of malpractice claim. Moreover, Dist. Ct. properly dismissed plaintiff’s fraud count based on defendants’ alleged misrepresentations regarding terms of proposed settlement in underlying action, because plaintiff’s allegations fell short of heightened pleading requirements set forth under Rule 9(b), where plaintiff failed to provide specific names, dates, times or content of misrepresentations or omissions that gave rise to alleged fraud. Ct. further noted that attachments to plaintiff’s complaint defeated his claim that defendants were not honest or clear about terms of proposed settlement agreement.