HOLDINGS: -The district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff trustee’s claims against defendant, the trust’s former attorney, as time-barred because Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.6’s four-year limitations period for legal malpractice claims began to run when the trust sustained an injury from defendant’s allegedly assisting in under-funding the trust estate, which occurred over four years before suit was filed; -As neither plaintiff nor the prior trustee of the trust was under a legal disability that would have prevented filing a malpractice action against defendant, the limitations period could not be tolled on that basis; -The court did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add a claim of breach of fiduciary duty because that claim was also time-barred and the proposed amendment was therefore futile. Appellant was represented by a business lawyer.
The judgment was affirmed.
The court dismissed plaintiffs’ TILA claim because it was not filed within the one-year limitations period, and plaintiffs’ bankruptcy did not toll the statute of limitations. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ TILA rescission claim under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1635(f) because they filed their rescission notice more than three years after the consummation of the loan. The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim alleging a violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 as defendant ignored their factual allegations of unfair business practices
Motion granted in part and denied in part.