1611 Euclid Avenue, Inc. v. Ritter, Ritter & Zaretsky

District Court of Appeal of Florida

1611 Euclid Avenue, Inc. v. Ritter, Ritter & Zaretsky

975 So. 2d 1233, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 3454, 2008 WL 649040

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 2008

DocketNo. 3D07-1633

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 975 So. 2d 1233 (1611 Euclid Avenue, Inc. v. Ritter, Ritter & Zaretsky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1611 Euclid Avenue, Inc. v. Ritter, Ritter & Zaretsky, 975 So. 2d 1233, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 3454, 2008 WL 649040 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing the plaintiffs fifth amended complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action. We reverse.

“A legal malpractice action has three elements: 1) the attorney’s employment; 2) the attorney’s neglect of a reasonable duty; and 3) the attorney’s negligence as the proximate cause of loss to the client.” Law Ofc. of David J. Stern, P.A. v. Sec. Nat’l Servicing Corp., 969 So.2d 962, 966 (Fla.2007). The complaint and attached exhibits properly alleged these elements. As such, the dismissal was in error. Accordingly, we remand with instructions that plaintiffs cause be reinstated.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing the plaintiffs fifth amended complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action. We reverse.

“A legal malpractice action has three elements: 1) the attorney’s employment; 2) the attorney’s neglect of a reasonable duty; and 3) the attorney’s negligence as the proximate cause of loss to the client.” Law Ofc. of David J. Stern, P.A. v. Sec. Nat’l Servicing Corp., 969 So.2d 962, 966 (Fla.2007). The complaint and attached exhibits properly alleged these elements. As such, the dismissal was in error. Accordingly, we remand with instructions that plaintiffs cause be reinstated.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

975 So. 2d 1233, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 3454, 2008 WL 649040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1611-euclid-avenue-inc-v-ritter-ritter-zaretsky-fladistctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack