R.M. v. Fagel (In re Fagel)

Summarized by Emil Khatchatourian , Foley & Lardner LLP
14 years 1 week ago

Citation:

Case No. 10-56134 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2012) (not for publication)

Tag(s):

Ruling:

Held that plaintiff-appellant did not waive any challenge to an award of legal-malpractice damages against defendant-appellee (the debtor) because she challenged the amount of damages in her first post-judgment motion to the bankruptcy court -- a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment. A Rule 59(e) motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Thus, a second Rule 59(e) motion could not properly challenge the amount of damages. "It would be patently unfair to find that [plaintiff-appellant] waived a challenge to the damages award by complying with the prohibition against improperly relitigating old matters in a Rule 59(e) motion." As the damages award was supported by the evidence in the record and plaintiff-appellant did not cite any evidence in the record demonstrating that the bankruptcy court's use of defendant-appellee's damage calculation was clearly erroneous, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court.

Procedural context:

(1) The bankruptcy court awarded plaintiff-appellant -- a client of the debtor -- legal malpractice damages in the amount of $2,966,725; (2) On appeal, the district court held that plaintiff-appellant had waived or abandoned any challenge to the damages amount by consenting to the amount; (3) Plaintiff-appellant appealed to the Ninth Circuit from the district court's ruling.

Facts:

Defendant-appellee, Bruce G. Fagel ("defendant-appellee"), committed legal malpractice while representing Ruby Morales ("plaintiff-appellant") in a medical malpractice action. Eventually, defendant-appellee filed for bankruptcy protection, and the bankruptcy court awarded plaintiff-appellant damages in the amount of $2,966,725. Plaintiff-appellant challenged this amount in a motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), as incorporated by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023. The bankruptcy court granted the motion, but still found that the amoutn of damages was proper. Plaintiff-appellant appealed to the district court, which held that she had waived any challenge to the damages award by consenting to the amount. This appeal ensued.

Judge(s):

WARDLAW and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Western Washington, sitting by designation.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!