Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitattorneynegligencesummary judgmenttrademark
contractlawsuitattorneynegligencetestimonysummary judgmenttrademarkappellee

Related Cases

Liggett v. Young, 877 N.E.2d 178
View Case »
Ryan v. Butera, Beausang, Cohen & Brennan, 193 F.3d 210
View Case »
The Florida Bar in re Inglis, 471 So.2d 38, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 333
View Case »
Wunschel Law Firm, P.C. v. Clabaugh, 291 N.W.2d 331, 9 A.L.R.4th 181
View Case »
Kenny A. v. Perdue, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 5503780
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mayo v. Engel, 733 F.2d 807

Facts

Dr. Mayo conceived the idea for Re-Sell-It Shops and hired attorney Chlipala to incorporate the business and conduct a trademark search. Although aware that the search was incomplete and had been conducted under the wrong category, Dr. Mayo proceeded to start his business and later sold the rights to the name, only to discover that it was already in use by others. After the sale, he faced significant financial loss due to the trademark issues, leading to the lawsuit against his former attorneys.

This lawsuit stems from legal work done for Dr. Mayo in connection with a business he started. Dr. Mayo conceived of the idea to commercially undertake sales of used furniture, clothing and other small items similar to that done in charitable thrift shops. Attorney Chlipala incorporated 'Re-Sell-It Shops, Inc.' in Florida and contracted with a trademark search company (Government Liaison Services) for Dr. Mayo, to search the name for purposes of registering and acquiring a trademark.

Issue

Did the district court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the attorneys, considering whether there were genuine issues of material fact regarding professional negligence and misrepresentation?

We must determine if the district court erred in finding that there are no issues of material fact and that the attorneys are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rule

A cause of action in negligence requires showing the attorney's employment, neglect of a reasonable duty, and that the negligence was the proximate cause of the loss to the client.

The parties agree that a cause of action in negligence requires showing the attorney's employment, the attorney's neglect of a reasonable duty, and that the negligence was the proximate cause of the loss to the client.

Analysis

The court found that Dr. Mayo was aware of the incomplete nature of the trademark search when he terminated Chlipala's services. Despite this knowledge, he proceeded with his business and the sale of the trademark, which undermined his claim of reliance on the attorney's work. The court concluded that any negligence on the part of Chlipala could not be the basis for relief since Dr. Mayo acted unreasonably by assuming the search was complete.

Dr. Mayo's own testimony shows that he knew the Government Liaison Services work was in error and that no steps had been taken to correct it when Mr. Chlipala was fired. Mr. Chlipala's testimony that he told Dr. Mayo that he was getting confused and that Dr. Mayo had better get the more expert Vermont counsel to handle the trademark matter is undisputed.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the attorneys, concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the attorneys were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

We find there is no issue of material fact and that appellees are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We AFFIRM the district court's order granting summary judgment.

Who won?

Attorneys Max P. Engel and Gerald Chlipala prevailed because the court found that Dr. Mayo could not hold them liable for negligence or misrepresentation, given his knowledge of the incomplete trademark search at the time he terminated their services.

The record does not disclose any facts that support a cause of action in misrepresentation. There is no evidence that the appellees' law firm held themselves out to the public to be expert in trademark work.

You must be