Submitted: December 12, 2016
Tarrant, Wilmington, Delaware, pro se.
Lawrence A. Ramunno, Ramunno & Ramunno, P.A., Wilmington,
Richard R. Cooch, R.J.
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.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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.
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.
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." 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
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 ...