Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tarrant v. Ramunno

Superior Court of Delaware

February 16, 2017

CHANEL TARRANT Appellant,
v.
LAWRENCE A. RAMUNNO, Appellee.

          Submitted: December 12, 2016

          Chanel Tarrant, Wilmington, Delaware, pro se.

          Lawrence A. Ramunno, Ramunno & Ramunno, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware.

          ORDER

          Richard R. Cooch, R.J.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         1. Plaintiff-Below/Appellant Chanel Tarrant ("Appellant") appeals a decision of the Court of Common Pleas granting Defendant-Below/Appellee Lawrence A. Ramunno's ("Appellee") Motion to Dismiss. Appellant has made no legal argument as to how the Court of Common Pleas erred, and this Court finds no error in the trial court's decision. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

         II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         2. Appellant engaged Appellee to represent her in a personal injury lawsuit. Initially, Appellee, representing Appellant, made a demand on the defendant in that lawsuit for $20, 000. The defendant in that action refused to pay the $20, 000, and Appellee then filed a personal injury action alleging $20, 000 in damages. The Appellant then engaged in mediation with the defendant in that lawsuit, represented by Appellee. The mediation resulted in Appellant accepting a settlement offer for less than the full $20, 000 claimed. Appellant received and subsequently cashed the settlement check.

         3. Unhappy with Appellee's representation of her, Appellant filed a complaint with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC"). In her complaint to the ODC, Appellant claimed that Appellee tricked her into signing the settlement agreement. The ODC reviewed the complaint and Appellee's response to the complaint and determined that Appellee's representation of Appellant did not fall below the acceptable level of representation.

         4. Appellant then filed a legal malpractice action with the Court of Common Pleas. In that action, Appellant alleged that "[she] was promised to be fully compensated with all medical bills paid, . . . and was encouraged to sign paperwork of legal documentation without any clarity of what [she] was signing."[1] Appellee then filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 12(b)(6) on grounds that Appellant had not sufficiently made a claim for legal malpractice.

         5. The Court of Common Pleas held argument on Appellee's Motion to Dismiss on April 29, 2016. The Court of Common Pleas issued on oral ruling granting Appellee's motion to dismiss. In that ruling, the Court of Common Pleas stated:

You are entitled to his time, attention, and his due diligence. You are not entitled to a guaranteed result. You are entitled to his best efforts.
There is nothing in the complaint which indicates that he did not put forth his best efforts. It may not have been the outcome that you wanted, but no one can guarantee when they are in litigations the outcome; never in jury trials, never in negotiations and mediations, and never before the judge.
You never know how the fact finder is going to find the fact, but you [are] entitled to his best efforts. Based on the documents in the record, I find that you have failed to state a claim for which relief can be ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.