Another Fen Phen case….claims of 50 litigants represented by Angela Ford dismissed due to statute of limitations

This is a fen phen case which was filed by some 50 litigants whose cases were transferred from the Ky. fen phen case to another attorney and joined in a class action in Alabama.   This case is different from the Boone County fen phen case which is currently on appeal to the ct. of appeals.

 The litigants claimed they didn’t get as much of a settlement as they thought they should, and sued their Ky. attorney in Fayette County in 2007.   At that time their attorney was Angela Ford who file the original fen phen clients case against Cunningham, Gallion and Mills. 

 

The Ct. of Appeals suggests that Angela Ford, who represents the appellants in this appeal, was involved in the other fen phen litigation and this demonstrates some common knowledge of the claimed wrongs of attorney Austin, and the discovery rule does not defeat the statute of limitations defense, since the appellants were on notice as early as 2005.  

 

This case discusses choice of law issues and “the borrowing statute”.

 

The trial court sua sponte dismissed all 50 claims due to statute of limitations.

 

The Ct. of Appeals upheld the trial courts dismissal.

 

LawReader subscribers can read the complete synopsis. 

 

For full text of case click case number  2009-CA-000465

 

LAWREADER SYNOPSIS:

 

Court of Appeals

NO. 2009-CA-000465-MR

BARBARA A. ABEL; AND OTHER

INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS AS

DESIGNATED IN THE NOTICE OF APPEAL APPELLANTS

 

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT

v. HONORABLE PAMELA R. GOODWINE, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 07-CI-05178

 

J. BRENT AUSTIN; LANGSTON,

SWEET AND FREESE, P.A.; AND

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,

PORTIS & MILES, P.C. APPELLEES

 

OPINION AFFIRMING

** **

 

 

LawReader synopsis # 1 TO BE PUBLISHED  COLLATERAL FEN PHEN CASE DISMISSAL UPHELD – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT – ANGELA FORD IS CITED AS APPELLANT’S ATTORNEY

 

This lawsuit derives from the infamous diet drug fen-phen litigation.

 

This group of plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein, had been referred by Cunningham and other counsel in the Moore case to the appellee trial counsels for the Stevens case. Afterward, they were included in the settlement of the Stevens case, which is the previously mentioned Alabama fen phen case.

 

Appellants then filed suit in Fayette Circuit Court on October 31, 2007. They claim that the date of this filing is within the one-year statute of limitations because it falls within one year of the actual discovery of the injury.

 

, the trial court issued its order, which held that Clore’s claims, specifically, and the other plaintiffs’ claims, generally, were time-barred.

 

In sum, they contend that the law firms failed to provide them with necessary information about the aggregate settlement resulting in each appellant’s not receiving the additional $18,443.84. But the issue on appeal is whether the limitations period bars the claim.

 

he provided information that in late 2004 and early 2005, Angela M. Ford, appellants’ attorney, filed lawsuits against Cunningham, Gallion, and Mills alleging that these attorneys stole millions of dollars from their former clients.

 

it is significant to note that a trial court has the authority to grant summary judgment in favor of a non-moving party “where overruling the [movant's] motion for summary judgment necessarily would require a determination that the [non-moving party was] entitled to the relief asked, [and] a motion for summary judgment by the [non-moving party] would have been a useless formality

 

When a cause of action has arisen in another state or country, and by the laws of this state or country where the cause of action accrued the time for the commencement of an action thereon is limited to a shorter period of time than the period of limitation prescribed by the laws of this state for a like cause of action, then said action shall be barred in this state at the expiration of said shorter period.

 

KRS 413.320 mandates that, if the other state’s limitations statute is shorter, it is to be applied

 

While it is true that the borrowing statute is triggered only when the cause of action accrued in another jurisdiction, a cause of action accrues where the breach of duty occurs

Comments are closed.