Goldberg v. Mittman
Dec 11, 2007OUTCOME: Affirmed by Tenth District Court of Appeals
On January 7, 2005 Jamie Goldberg, Esq. filed a Complaint against Scott A. Mittman, Esq. for legal malpractice.  Mittman filed an Answer and Counterclaim against Goldberg for recovery of legal fees ... based upon a theory of quantum meruit. During the course of discovery in the underlying action, Mittman failed to timely respond to Goldberg’s discovery requests. Goldberg filed a Motion with the trial court for an Order deeming all requests for admissions propounded on Mittman admitted. Goldberg filed a Motion to Compel Mittman to respond to the interrogatories and therein requested an oral hearing. Goldberg also filed a Notice with the Court of Mittman’s failure to timely file multiple responsive pleadings within the prescribed time period pursuant to Franklin County Local Rule 21.01. The trial court granted Goldberg’s motion to compel and ordered matters deemed admitted pursuant to Oh.Civ.R. 36. The trial court further ordered Mittman to respond to Goldberg’s discovery requests within 14 days of receipt of the court’s order or provide the court with sufficient justification as to why compliance is impossible. Mittman failed to comply and as such, Goldberg filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Mittman. Goldberg moved for Summary Judgment on her claim of legal malpractice and Mittman’s counterclaim for quantum meruit. Mittman filed his Memorandum Contra to Goldberg’s motion for summary judgment, in addition to a request for partial summary judgment and motion to strike motion for summary judgment and request for sanctions. The trial court, after considering all the memoranda submitted, granted Goldberg’s Motion for Summary Judgment finding that Mittman’s actions and inactions constituted legal malpractice. The trial court specifically determined that “[Mittman] failed to respond to [Goldberg’s] request for admissions and further failed to challenge [Goldberg’s] motion to have the admissions deemed admitted. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling granting summary judgment.
