Judge ends ‘ironic’ bid to nix malpractice case over lawyer’s blown deadlines

Judge ends ‘ironic’ bid to nix malpractice case over lawyer’s blown deadlines

A businessman waits to cross a street. REUTERS/Yuriko Nakao

Sign up now for No cost endless access to Reuters.com

  • Attorney claimed lawsuit about missed deadlines also skipped a deadline
  • But judge stated filing interval for malpractice statements was induced later on

The firm and legislation organization names revealed higher than are generated immediately centered on the text of the post. We are improving this aspect as we carry on to exam and develop in beta. We welcome feed-back, which you can provide making use of the responses tab on the suitable of the web page.

Feb 4 – A Chicago attorney accused by a previous consumer of ignoring many deadlines to file place of work bias promises cannot shake a malpractice lawsuit that he, in turn, said was submitted as well late, a federal decide ruled on Friday.

Though noting that “irony is no barrier to a motion to dismiss,” U.S. District Choose Steven Seeger in Chicago turned down Charles Lee Mudd’s claim that the circumstance from him was untimely mainly because it was submitted much more than two a long time immediately after he allegedly skipped the window to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the shopper, Michael Koumjian.

The decide reported Koumjian, a former ExpressJet Airlines pilot, had two decades from the time he realized that he could no for a longer period sue the organization, somewhat than from when the deadline to sue experienced basically handed, to deliver malpractice promises from Mudd. Seeger stated it was not clear when that transpired and authorized the lawsuit to continue.

Sign up now for No cost unrestricted accessibility to Reuters.com

John Duffy, a law firm for Mudd, said “we seem ahead to the real information remaining introduced somewhat than unsubstantiated allegations.”

Mudd heads a five-attorney company wherever he focuses on “Internet and place regulation and coverage,” according to the firm’s web-site.

Thomas Gooch, who signifies Koumjian, stated he was pleased with the choice.

Koumjian had accused ExpressJet of firing him for complaining about harassment primarily based on his ethnicity, according to court filings. But he claimed Mudd sat on his statements for much more than two decades, eventually lacking just about every opportunity to file a lawsuit on his behalf. ExpressJet did not quickly reply to a request for comment.

Koumjian is in search of at least $2 million in damages from Mudd.

The situation is Koumjian v. Mudd Legislation Places of work, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:21-cv-03455.

For Koumjian: Thomas Gooch of The Gooch Business

For Mudd: John Duffy of Swanson Martin & Bell

(Editor’s Note: This posting has been current to incorporate a statement from John Duffy, Mudd’s lawyer.)

Sign-up now for No cost limitless obtain to Reuters.com

Our Specifications: The Thomson Reuters Belief Principles.

Ferne Dekker

Learn More →