Staff Report//August 19, 2019
Where plaintiff brought claims including breach of fiduciary duty, collusion and fraud against an attorney and a law firm in a dispute arising from commercial transactions, summary judgment for the defendants was proper because the district court correctly determined that the fiduciary-duty claim was derivative of a legal malpractice claim so an expert affidavit was required under Minnesota law, and fraud claims were properly dismissed based on the lack of evidence of the attorney’s knowledge of ownership interest.
Judgment is affirmed.
Sandhu v. Kanzler (MLW No. 73712/Case No. 18-2957 – 20 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Montgomery, J. (Boris Parker, Minneapolis, argued for appellant) (Ronald Harvey McLean, Fargo, North Dakota, argued for appellee).