Lexplug logoLexplug

Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Industries, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida
2009 Fla. LEXIS 1868, 22 So. 3d 36, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 591 (2009)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

In legal malpractice actions arising from litigation, the two-year statute of limitations begins to run when the underlying final judgment becomes final; however, if a separate judgment for sanctions is entered later, a distinct limitations period applies to claims arising specifically from those sanctions.


Facts:

  • Larson & Larson, P.A. (Larson) represented TSE Industries, Inc. (TSE) in a federal patent infringement lawsuit against Franklynn Industries.
  • TSE lost the patent trial, with the jury finding TSE's patent invalid.
  • Following the verdict, Franklynn moved for sanctions and attorney fees, alleging that a TSE employee engaged in inequitable conduct and that TSE failed to candidly disclose problems with the patent.
  • The federal district court entered a final judgment against TSE regarding the patent invalidity, which TSE did not appeal.
  • Separately, the federal court granted the motion for sanctions against TSE but did not immediately set the specific dollar amount.
  • TSE eventually settled the sanctions amount with Franklynn and filed a stipulation of dismissal.
  • Two years after the patent judgment was final, but less than two years after the sanctions settlement, TSE sued Larson for malpractice seeking damages for the loss of the patent suit and the sanctions paid.

Procedural Posture:

  • TSE sued Larson for legal malpractice in the Florida circuit court (trial court).
  • Larson moved for summary judgment, arguing the two-year statute of limitations had expired.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Larson, ruling the entire lawsuit was time-barred.
  • TSE appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal.
  • The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the statute of limitations did not start until the sanctions were resolved.
  • Larson petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for review based on a conflict with a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the two-year statute of limitations for a litigation-related legal malpractice claim begin to run when the final judgment in the underlying case becomes final, even if a collateral motion for sanctions remains pending?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Canady

Yes, regarding the underlying judgment, but no regarding the subsequent sanctions. The Court adopted a bifurcated approach to the statute of limitations. Relying on the bright-line rule from Silvestrone, the Court reasoned that the statute of limitations for the malpractice claim regarding the main patent dispute began to run when that specific judgment became final and non-appealable. However, because sanctions are collateral and distinct from the main judgment, the damages arising from the sanctions were not established until the sanctions issue was fully resolved. Therefore, TSE's claim regarding the patent loss was time-barred, but the claim regarding the sanctions was timely.


Dissent - Justice Lewis

No, the statute of limitations should not begin to run until the entire litigation, including sanctions, is concluded. The dissent argued that the majority's bifurcated approach forces clients to file malpractice suits against their attorneys while those attorneys are still representing them in the ongoing sanctions phase of the same case. Justice Lewis believed the "underlying litigation" did not truly end until the sanctions were settled and the case was dismissed, and that splitting the cause of action violates the rule against splitting claims and creates conflicts of interest.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Perry

Yes, the statute of limitations began to run for all claims when the underlying patent judgment became final. Justice Perry argued that under the discovery rule, the limitations period begins when the client discovers some redressable harm. Since TSE knew it had been damaged by the patent loss in September 2002, the clock started then for the entire malpractice action. The sanctions were merely additional damages flowing from the same alleged negligence, not a separate cause of action.



Analysis:

This decision refines the "bright-line" rule established in Silvestrone, clarifying that litigation can have multiple points of finality for statute of limitations purposes. By bifurcating the accrual dates for the underlying judgment and collateral sanctions, the Court attempts to balance the need for certainty with the reality that some damages (like sanctions) remain speculative even after the main case ends. This impacts future malpractice litigation by requiring plaintiffs to carefully track separate deadlines for different aspects of the same underlying representation.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Industries, Inc. (2009)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"