SPYDELL DAVIDSON v. NADER BAYDOUN, ET AL. - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jun 1, 2015

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Beau E. Pemberton, Dresden, Tennessee, for the appellant, Spydell Davidson.

Attorneys 2:

Darrell G. Townsend, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Nader Baydoun and Baydoun & Knight, PLLC.

Judge(s): CLEMENT

This is Plaintiff?s second appeal of the dismissal of his legal malpractice claim. The first appeal arose from the grant of a motion to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) wherein the trial court concluded that Plaintiff?s cause of action accrued more than one year before the complaint was filed and was time barred. Based solely on a review of the allegations in the complaint, we concluded that the action was not time barred. See Davidson v. Baydoun, No. M2008-02746-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 2365563 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2009). On remand, the parties engaged in discovery, which revealed that Plaintiff knew he had been injured by Defendants? alleged negligence more than one year before the commencement of this action. Defendants then filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.02 motion for summary judgment, which was properly supported by a statement of undisputed facts, contending they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff?s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint finding it was undisputed that Plaintiff knew he had suffered an injury because of Defendants? alleged negligence more than one year before the commencement of this action. The trial court also granted Defendants? motion for discretionary costs. On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by granting Defendants? motion for summary judgment and by awarding Defendants discretionary costs. We affirm.

Attachments: