Bit Parts

Ninth Circuit Applies California Statute of Limitations to Legal Malpractice Suit by George Clinton Against Law Firm He Retained from Seattle

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that musician George Clinton's malpractice suit against a Seattle-area law firm was barred by California's one-year statute of limitations for such claims. Clinton v. Hendricks & Lewis PLLC, 12-35791. Clinton hired Hendricks & Lewis (H&L) to represent him in litigation against record labels, including Universal Music Group (UMG), in California. But the law firm subsequently severed their relationship with Clinton for failure to pay legal fees and obtained an arbitration award against him for around $1.7 million. In 2011, Clinton sued to overturn the arbitrator's ruling and to obtain over $10 million in damages from H&L. Clinton's suit included a cause of action alleging malpractice in the record label litigation. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled, however, that Clinton's suit was time-barred. Affirming in an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit noted: “Clinton's legal malpractice claim seeks damages for alleged harms stemming from H&L's work on cases that were litigated in California and which arose under California law. Moreover, Clinton seeks punitive damages and prejudgment interest, both of which are prohibited in Washington but permitted in California. Thus, while the attorney-client relationship in this case may have originated in Washington, the specific legal work that Clinton challenges occurred in California.” The appeals court added: “The limitations period began to run on Clinton's legal malpractice claim no later than September 15, 2008, when the Central District of California entered judgment against Clinton in [the UMG case] in which he was previously represented by H&L.” '

State Restriction on Ability to File Suit Bars Claim over Concert Joint Venture

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska decided that a Colorado-based company couldn't proceed with a suit over a July 2, 2012, joint venture to present a concert in a stadium in Nebraska. Blues Events LLC v. Lincoln Professional Baseball Inc., 4:13-CV-3101. Blues Events sued to obtain monies from an Aug. 31, 2012 concert it co-produced with the Lincoln Saltdogs baseball team. Nebraska's Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. '21-101 et seq., requires a “foreign limited liability company transacting business in this state” to obtain a certificate of authority in order to file a suit in Nebraska. But the restriction doesn't apply to out-of-state companies that conduct “an isolated transaction that is completed within thirty days and is not in the course of similar transactions.” However, District Judge John M. Gerrard noted: “The concert, standing alone, might have been an isolated transaction. But Blues Events engaged in extended negotiation, and then promotion and production of the concert, from no later than the execution of the Agreement.”

Ninth Circuit Applies California Statute of Limitations to Legal Malpractice Suit by George Clinton Against Law Firm He Retained from Seattle

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that musician George Clinton's malpractice suit against a Seattle-area law firm was barred by California's one-year statute of limitations for such claims. Clinton v. Hendricks & Lewis PLLC, 12-35791. Clinton hired Hendricks & Lewis (H&L) to represent him in litigation against record labels, including Universal Music Group (UMG), in California. But the law firm subsequently severed their relationship with Clinton for failure to pay legal fees and obtained an arbitration award against him for around $1.7 million. In 2011, Clinton sued to overturn the arbitrator's ruling and to obtain over $10 million in damages from H&L. Clinton's suit included a cause of action alleging malpractice in the record label litigation. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled, however, that Clinton's suit was time-barred. Affirming in an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit noted: “Clinton's legal malpractice claim seeks damages for alleged harms stemming from H&L's work on cases that were litigated in California and which arose under California law. Moreover, Clinton seeks punitive damages and prejudgment interest, both of which are prohibited in Washington but permitted in California. Thus, while the attorney-client relationship in this case may have originated in Washington, the specific legal work that Clinton challenges occurred in California.” The appeals court added: “The limitations period began to run on Clinton's legal malpractice claim no later than September 15, 2008, when the Central District of California entered judgment against Clinton in [the UMG case] in which he was previously represented by H&L.” '

State Restriction on Ability to File Suit Bars Claim over Concert Joint Venture

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska decided that a Colorado-based company couldn't proceed with a suit over a July 2, 2012, joint venture to present a concert in a stadium in Nebraska. Blues Events LLC v. Lincoln Professional Baseball Inc., 4:13-CV-3101. Blues Events sued to obtain monies from an Aug. 31, 2012 concert it co-produced with the Lincoln Saltdogs baseball team. Nebraska's Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. '21-101 et seq., requires a “foreign limited liability company transacting business in this state” to obtain a certificate of authority in order to file a suit in Nebraska. But the restriction doesn't apply to out-of-state companies that conduct “an isolated transaction that is completed within thirty days and is not in the course of similar transactions.” However, District Judge John M. Gerrard noted: “The concert, standing alone, might have been an isolated transaction. But Blues Events engaged in extended negotiation, and then promotion and production of the concert, from no later than the execution of the Agreement.”