Jones v. Wirth et al, No. 2:2016cv00243 - Document 71 (D. Nev. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER granting Defendants' ECF No. 46 Renewed Motion to Dismiss Under FRCP 12(b)(6); dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's complaint; directing Clerk to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/6/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. Wirth et al Doc. 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 KIMBERLY MOFFATT JONES; CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-00243-MMD-GWF 11 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 12 v. 13 14 15 KATHRYN STRYKER WIRTH, and JOLLEY URGA WOODBURY & LITTLE aka JOLLEY URGA WOODBURY & STANDISH aka JOLLEY URGA WIRTH & WOODBURY, 16 Defendants. 17 18 I. SUMMARY 19 This case involves allegations of legal malpractice, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty 20 by Kimberly Moffatt Jones against her former counsel, Kathryn Stryker Wirth and Ms. Wirth’s 21 former firm, Jolley Urga Woodbury & Little aka Jolley Urga Woodbury & Standish aka Jolley Urga 22 Wirth & Woodbury. 23 Before the Court is Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss Under FRCP 12(b)(6) 24 (“Motion”). (ECF No. 46). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to 25 Dismiss (ECF No. 49) and Defendants’ Reply (ECF No. 58). For the reasons below, the Motion to 26 Dismiss is granted, with prejudice. 27 28 1153324v.2 Dockets.Justia.com 1 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 2 The relevant facts are taken from the Complaint and the Motion. On or about July 1, 1998, 3 Defendants, acting through Ms. Wirth, represented Plaintiff in negotiating and executing a prenuptial 4 agreement, which Ms. Wirth signed as Plaintiff’s attorney. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 12). More than fourteen 5 years later, on or about October 4, 2012, Plaintiff was named as a defendant in the case entitled 6 Fletcher Jones, Jr. v. Kimberly Jones, case number D-12-470239-U (hereinafter the “Jones v. Jones 7 case”), filed in the District Court, Family Division in Clark County, Nevada. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 16). In 8 the Jones v. Jones case, Fletcher Jones, Jr. (“Mr. Jones”) sought specific performance and to enforce 9 three agreements, including a prenuptial agreement, a marital settlement agreement, and a post 10 marital agreement. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 16). 11 Mr. Jones identified Ms. Wirth as a witness in the Jones v. Jones case, and noticed her 12 deposition, including requesting a copy of Defendants’ file on the transaction. Prior to Ms. Wirth’s 13 deposition, Plaintiff executed an authorization for the release of certain materials from her file to her 14 attorneys, with which Defendants complied. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 18). During her deposition on November 15 4, 2013, Ms. Wirth testified that her “notes” were not provided and had been withheld from the 16 production of the file to Plaintiff, which Ms. Wirth explained was intentionally done because of 17 attorney-client privilege and work product issues. Ms. Wirth was concerned that if she had reviewed 18 the notes in preparation for her deposition, that it might result in a waiver of the privilege. (ECF No. 19 1, ¶ 19). At trial, Mr. Jones called Ms. Wirth to testify as a witness on February 7, 2014, at which 20 time she testified that she had reviewed her file and her personal notes in preparation for her 21 testimony on that date. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 22). The Complaint alleges that Ms. Wirth’s personal notes 22 were also ordered to be produced to Mr. Jones and his attorneys, with some, but allegedly not all of 23 the privileged information redacted. (ECF No. 1, ¶23). Plaintiff contends that Defendants committed 24 legal malpractice by allegedly causing confidential information that was entitled to the protection of 25 the attorney-client privilege to be disclosed to Plaintiff’s adversary in the Jones v. Jones case. 26 Plaintiff contends that her “defense in that civil case was so severely compromised by acts and 27 28 Page 2 of 8 1153324v.2 1 omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, that Plaintiff had no reasonable chance of prevailing 2 at trial.” (ECF No. 1., ¶ 25). 3 Court filings attached to Defendants’ Motion show that following Ms. Wirth's testimony on 4 February 7, 2014, Ms. Wirth requested an order from the trial court permitting her and her firm to 5 release only to Plaintiff the attorney notes Ms. Wirth maintained in Plaintiff’s client file. (ECF No. 6 46-1, at p. 9). The trial court granted the request and specifically ordered Ms. Wirth's notes be 7 produced only "to [Ms. Jones] to preserve the privilege." (ECF No. 46-1, at p. 9). On February 12, 8 2014, counsel for Mr. Jones requested an order directing the production of Ms. Wirth's notes to Mr. 9 Jones. (Id.) The following day, the trial court directed Plaintiff’s counsel to provide a copy of Ms. 10 Wirth's notes to Presiding Family Court Judge Charles Hoskin for an in camera review of the notes 11 and to redact the privileged content. (ECF No. 46-1, at p. 9). Counsel for both parties later received 12 a copy of Ms. Wirth's notes, as redacted by Judge Hoskin. (ECF No. 46-1 at p. 14). Eventually, the 13 trial court ordered production of certain unredacted notes, but that order was stayed by the Nevada 14 Supreme Court, and unredacted notes were never produced to Mr. Jones. (ECF No. 46-3, 46-4). 15 Following a bench trial on the merits, the trial court in the Jones v. Jones case found in favor 16 of Mr. Jones, issuing a fifty-one page judgment that included detailed Findings of Fact and 17 Conclusions of Law. (ECF No. 46-6). 18 conclusions as to Plaintiff’s credibility. (ECF No. 46-6, pp. 36, 49-50). Following trial, Plaintiff filed 19 an appeal to the Supreme Court of Nevada, raising various issues, including "whether the district 20 court erred by admitting evidence relating to Kimberly's credibility." [ECF No. 46-6, at p. 2] With 21 respect to this issue, the Supreme Court stated: 22 The trial court made some unfavorable findings and Kimberly [Jones] also argues [on appeal] that the district court ‘should not have permitted Kimberly's former attorney, Kathryn Stryker Wirth, to lead the impeachment effort against Kimberly by relying on privileged notes.’ However, the district court ruled that there was an attorney-client privilege and properly redacted the documents. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 689 F.2d 1351, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982). Kimberly fails to identify any specific testimony by Wirth that disclosed privileged communications impacting the trial or any part of the district court's findings and conclusions in which the district court improperly relied on privileged testimony from Wirth. 23 24 25 26 27 (ECF No. 46-7,at p. 12, n.5). 28 Page 3 of 8 1153324v.2 The Complaint alleges claims of Legal Malpractice (First Cause of Action), Negligence 1 2 (Second Cause of Action) and Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Third Cause of Action). 3 III. DISCUSSION 4 A. Legal Standard 5 A court may dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can 6 be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A properly pleaded complaint must provide “a short and plain 7 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell 8 Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual 9 allegations, it demands more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements 10 of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 11 555). “Factual allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 12 555. Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to 13 “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks 14 omitted). 15 B. 16 Defendants’ Motion attaches publicly filed documents as Exhibits 46-1, 46-2, 46-3, 46-4, 46- 17 5, 46-6 and 46-7, consisting of a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed with the 18 Nevada Supreme Court, an Order from the Family Division of the District Court, two Orders 19 granting stays issued by the Nevada Supreme Court, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law issued 20 by the Family Division of the District Court, and an Order of Affirmance from the Nevada Supreme 21 Court. Defendants requested that the Court take judicial notice of these documents, and Plaintiff did 22 not oppose the request. All of the documents are publicly-filed court records whose contents are 23 either alleged in or central to the Complaint. As a result, the Court may take judicial notice of these 24 documents without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See Lee 25 v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). Defendants’ request to take judicial 26 notice of Exhibits 46-1 through 46-7 is granted. Judicial Notice of Exhibits Attached to Defendants’ Motion 27 28 Page 4 of 8 1153324v.2 1 C. Plaintiff’s Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Which Relief May be Granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 2 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that by virtue of Ms. Wirth’s review of her privileged notes 4 prior to testifying at trial, privileged information contained in those notes was disclosed to her 5 former husband, and used to impeach her credibility at trial. (ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 36). 6 However, those notes were reviewed and redacted by the Presiding Judge of the Family Division, at 7 the request of the trial court, before being provided to Plaintiff’s former husband. Thus, no 8 privileged portions of the notes were provided to Mr. Jones. The Nevada Supreme Court, in 9 affirming the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law issued by the District Court, specifically 10 addressed Ms. Wirth’s notes and rejected the claim Plaintiff asserts in her Complaint, by stating: 11 Kimberly also argues that the district court “should not have permitted Kimberly’s former attorney, Kathryn Stryker Wirth, to lead the impeachment effort against Kimberly by relying on privileged notes.” However, the district court ruled that there was an attorney-client privilege and properly redacted the documents. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 689 F.2d 1351, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982). Kimberly fails to identify any specific testimony by Wirth that disclosed privileged communications impacting the trial or any part of the district court’s findings and conclusions in which the district court improperly relief on privileged testimony from Wirth. 12 13 14 15 16 (ECF No. 46-7, page 12, fn. 5). 17 Plaintiff concedes that she is bound by the Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling, even if she 18 disagrees with it. As a result, Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a plausible claim under Fed. R. Civ. 19 P. 12(b)(6). 20 In Plaintiff’s Opposition and at oral argument, Plaintiff argued that her claim was broader 21 than plead in the Complaint. Plaintiff argued that Ms. Wirth fell below the standard of care and 22 breached a fiduciary duty because she decided to review her notes in preparation for her trial 23 testimony, when she had not reviewed her notes prior to her deposition testimony. Plaintiff argues 24 that this change in strategy led to the notes becoming an issue, and ultimately impacted the trial 25 court’s conclusions about Plaintiff’s credibility. The Court finds no merit in Plaintiff’s argument, 26 however, because Plaintiff has failed to identify any authority preventing Ms. Wirth from reviewing 27 her notes in order to provide truthful testimony under subpoena, when no privileged information was 28 Page 5 of 8 1153324v.2 1 revealed. There is no legal duty under which Ms. Wirth would be precluded from reviewing her 2 notes and testifying truthfully and fully. Plaintiff argued that Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3 1.9(c) imposes such a duty. Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(c) states: 4 (c) 5 A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter: 6 (1) Use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or (2) Reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client. 7 8 9 10 The Court finds that Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(c) does not apply. Ms. Wirth did not 11 use information relating to her prior representation of Plaintiff to the disadvantage of Plaintiff. Ms. 12 Wirth provided truthful testimony in response to a subpoena to do so, which the Court does not 13 consider as any improper “use” under the Rule. 14 The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s legal malpractice cause of action fails to state a claim 15 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), on an independent basis. The elements of a legal malpractice claim 16 under Nevada law are 1) an attorney-client relationship; 2) a duty on the part of the lawyer; 3) a 17 failure to perform the duty; and 4) damage caused to the client as a result. Further, “the attorney 18 must be employed in such a capacity as to impose a duty of care with regard to the particular 19 transaction connected to the malpractice claim.” Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703, 706-707, 20 692 P.2d 1282, 1285 (1984)(superceded by statute on other grounds as stated in Humphries v. Eighth 21 Jud. Dist. Ct., 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 85, 312 P.3d 484 (2013)), citing Shropshire v. Freeman, 510 22 S.W.2d 405 (Tex. Civ. App. 1974); Mainor v. Nault, 120 Nev. 750, 768, 101 P.3d 308 (2004), as 23 corrected on denial of reh’g (Apr. 13, 2005)(commenting that a legal malpractice claim focuses on 24 whether the attorneys adhered to the standard of care in their representation of the case). At the time 25 of the incidents alleged in the Complaint, Ms. Wirth did not have an attorney-client relationship with 26 Plaintiff. Plaintiff is not alleging any acts of malpractice at the time of the drafting of the pre-nuptial 27 agreement in 1998, when she and Ms. Wirth did have an attorney-client relationship. Thus, the 28 Page 6 of 8 1153324v.2 1 Court finds that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for legal malpractice against Ms. Wirth arising out of 2 her trial testimony in 2014 under the pleading standards of Iqbal and Twombly. 3 D. Leave to Amend is Denied as Futile 4 Plaintiff’s Opposition seeks the opportunity to amend the Complaint. The Court should 5 “freely give” leave to amend when there is no “undue delay, bad faith[,] dilatory motive on the part 6 of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue 7 prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of ... the amendment, [or] futility of the amendment.” Fed. 8 R. Civ. P. 15(a); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Generally, leave to amend is only 9 denied when it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. See 10 DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court finds that 11 amendment would be futile, as Ms. Wirth did not disclose privileged information in violation of the 12 Rules of Professional Conduct, and Plaintiff cannot state facts demonstrating a violation or a breach 13 of the standard of care by virtue of her testimony at trial. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 It is hereby ordered that Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss Under FRCP 12(b)(6) 16 (ECF No. 46) is granted. Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to 17 enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case. 18 19 20 21 ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. 6th June Dated this _____ day of _____________, 2017 ________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 7 of 8 1153324v.2 1 DATED this 2nd day of June, 2017. 2 3 4 Respectfully Submitted, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 BY: /s/ Sheri M. Thome Sheri M. Thome, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 008657 Chad C. Butterfield, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 010532 300 South Fourth Street, 11th Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Defendants Kathryn Stryker Wirth, and Jolley Urga Woodbury & Little aka Jolley Urga Woodbury & Standish aka Jolley Urga Wirth & Woodbury 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 8 of 8 1153324v.2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
