GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, LLC V. MONTGOMERY PURDUE BLANKINSHIP, No. 14-35841 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, LLC, Nos. 14-35841 15-35026 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01662-TSZ v. MONTGOMERY PURDUE BLANKINSHIP & AUSTIN PLLC, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 19, 2017 Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Global Enterprises, LLC (“Global”) appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment to Montgomery Purdue Blankinship & Austin PLLC (“Montgomery Purdue”) in its malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1. Global has not offered sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact whether Global and Montgomery Purdue formed an attorney-client relationship in the EVYA case. See Bohn v. Cody, 832 P.2d 71, 75 (Wash. 1992). While Global’s Frank Steuart avers he believed Montgomery Purdue represented Global in the EVYA case, that belief was not reasonable based on the attending circumstances at trial. See id. (explaining that the court considers the reasonableness of a client’s belief at the time of the allegedly tortious act). Accordingly, there was no error in granting summary judgment to Montgomery Purdue on this claim. 2. Global’s breach of fiduciary duty claim also fails. Although Montgomery Purdue did owe Global a fiduciary duty in the Stabbert case, see In re Estate of Larson, 694 P.2d 1051, 1054 (Wash. 1985), that duty did not require Montgomery Purdue to protect Global’s interests in the EVYA case. Additionally, Montgomery Purdue did not impermissibly limit the scope of its representation under Washington Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(c). Accordingly, there was no error in granting summary judgment to Montgomery Purdue on this claim. AFFIRMED. 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.
