K.A. Holdings Ltd. of New York v. Christopher Chagaris, No. 13-2328 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2328 K.A. HOLDINGS LTD. OF NEW YORK, a/k/a K.A. Holdings of New York, Inc., a/k/a K.A. Holdings of New York, Ltd., a/k/a K.A. Holdings, Ltd., Plaintiff Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER CHAGARIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:09-cv-00487-MOC-DCK) Submitted: August 29, 2014 Decided: September 15, 2014 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney A. Dean, Clay A. Campbell, Sr., DEAN GIBSON HOFER & NANCE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. David G. Redding, Joseph R. Pellington, TISON REDDING, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Following Appellee against on its a trial, claims of Christopher a federal legal Chagaris, the jury found malpractice Appellee s for the and conversion former attorney. The jury awarded the Appellee $793,568.45 in damages and the district court denied Chagaris renewed motion for a directed verdict. Chagaris now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Chagaris first argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment, in which he argued that the legal malpractice claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We review de novo a district court s summary judgment order. Providence Square Assocs., L.L.C. v. G.D.F., Inc., 211 F.3d 846, 850 (4th Cir. 2000). Under North Carolina law, a three-year statute of limitations applies to actions for malpractice, and the claim accrues at the time of the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action. N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 1-15(c). The date of the last act giving rise to the cause action is for legal of necessary a the point wrong in time coalesce. when the Carle v. elements Wyrick, Robbins, Yates & Ponton, LLP, 738 S.E.2d 766, 770 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). To determine when the last act or omission occurred [courts] look to factors such as the contractual relationship between the parties, when the 2 contracted-for services were complete, and remedied. when the Id. at 771. alleged mistakes could no longer be We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and hold that the district court correctly concluded that the Appellee s claim of legal malpractice was not barred by the statute of limitations. Chagaris next argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the Appellee s evidence of damages when the Appellee failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and the evidence failed to meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule. We review evidentiary district court for abuse of discretion. rulings of the United States v. Caro, 597 F.3d 608, 633 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). An abuse of discretion occurs only when the [district] court acted arbitrarily or irrationally in admitting evidence. United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 732 (4th Cir. (internal 2006) quotation marks and citation omitted). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence. Finally, Chagaris argues that the Appellee failed to establish its claim for legal malpractice. We review de novo the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and will affirm the denial of such a 3 motion unless the jury lacked a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for its verdict. Cir. 2012) evidence (citation at trial, Gregg v. Ham, 678 F.3d 333, 341 (4th omitted). that the We court conclude, did not based err in on the denying Chagaris renewed motion for a directed verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and the district court s facts orders. and legal We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the the materials before this Court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
