McAllister v. Watkins et al
Filing
121
ORDER granting 89 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; striking 118 Motion to Strike ; striking 119 Motion to Supplement; striking 120 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 10/20/16. (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CAMRON McALLISTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TRAVIS W. WATKINS; and
TRAVIS W. WATKINS, P.C.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Number CIV-15-371-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff brought this case based on claims of professional negligence and breach of
contract against Defendant personally and in his professional capacity as a tax attorney at
Travis W. Watkins, P.C. (“Watkins,” the “Firm,” collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the Motion is now at issue.
The standard for summary judgment is well established. Summary judgment may
only be granted if the evidence of record shows “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). The movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of material fact
requiring judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23
(1986). A fact is material if it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). If the movant carries this initial burden,
the nonmovant must then set forth specific facts outside the pleadings and admissible into
evidence which would convince a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmovant.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). All facts and reasonable inferences therefrom are construed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
In the first issue offered for summary judgment, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s
claims should be dismissed because he had not filed witness and exhibit lists at the time the
Motion was filed. This argument is now moot pursuant to the Court’s Order allowing
Plaintiff additional time to file these documents. (Dkt. No. 105).
Professional Negligence
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claim for professional negligence should be decided
as a matter of law because Defendants did not breach a duty owed to Plaintiff. To be
successful with his professional negligence claim, Plaintiff must prove “(1) the existence of
an attorney-client relationship, (2) breach of [Defendants’] duty to the client, (3) facts
constituting the alleged negligence, (4 a causal nexus between [Defendants’] negligence and
the resulting injury (or damage) and (5) but for [Defendants’] conduct, the client would have
succeeded in the action.” Manley v. Brown, 1999 OK 79, ¶ 8, 989 P.2d 448, 452 (emphasis
omitted). The proximate cause or “but for” element of the claim “must be based on
something more substantial than mere speculation and conjecture.” Worsham v. Nix, 2006
OK 67, ¶ 32, 145 P.3d 1055, 1065-66.
The first element is undisputed. Next, Defendants must demonstrate an absence of
material facts showing that Defendants breached a duty owed to Plaintiff. The question will
be whether Defendants’ actions while representing Plaintiff fell below common acceptable
professional standards. As the Oklahoma Supreme Court has stated, a lawyer who acts in
2
good faith “is not answerable for a mere error of judgment when dealing with a point of law
. . . about which reasonable doubt may be entertained by well-informed lawyers.” Manley,
1999 OK 79, ¶ 9, 989 P.2d at 452. If the legal situation or law is “doubtful or debatable, a
lawyer will not be held responsible for failing to anticipate how the uncertainty will
ultimately be resolved.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Both parties have put forth expert opinions
regarding Defendants’ actions taken to help resolve Plaintiff’s IRS problems. Viewing the
facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has asserted facts
that could convince the trier of fact that Defendants did breach a duty owed to Plaintiff.
Thus, the second and third elements do not present undisputed material facts upon which
summary judgment can be granted.
Next, the Court will consider whether Plaintiff has asserted facts showing a causal
nexus between Defendants’ conduct and Plaintiff’s harm. The Complaint states that at the
time of hiring, Plaintiff owed approximately $1,000,000 and “through the negligence of
Defendants and breach of contract by Defendants, the debt increased to approximately
$9,500,000” and that if Defendants had properly asserted arguments, the IRS would have
withdrawn claims for taxes due, interest, and penalties. (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 13, ¶ 9-10,
23.) There are not however, any more specific references to facts or the record that would
allow the Court to find that Plaintiff has met his burden to show harm suffered. See Stevens
v. Barnard, 512 F.2d 876, 878 (10th Cir. 1975) (stating that a party opposing a motion for
summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations of his pleadings, but must
respond with specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial”).
3
Plaintiff’s Response to Undisputed, Material Fact (“UMF”) No. 1 raises a dispute
stating that the tax delinquency outstanding at the time Plaintiff retained Defendants’ services
was “$2,135.820.25” [sic]. (Resp., Dkt. No. 107, p. 3.) There are no facts or evidence
provided to indicate that Plaintiff’s debt has increased to the claimed $9.5 million, nor has
Plaintiff shown that Defendants’ actions have impacted the matter pending with the IRS.
Defendants asserted in UMF No. 44 that the actions taken with the IRS left a viable option
for Plaintiff to seek a reduction in the amount of taxes owed through another “Doubt as to
Liability” submission. Plaintiff has failed to address the fact, only contesting whether the
specific submission was appealable, so it is deemed undisputed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).
The final element is that, but for Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff would have succeeded
in a favorable outcome with the IRS.
Plaintiff has failed to show that an audit
reconsideration request would have been successful or that the IRS would have reversed the
tax determination made against him. Plaintiff’s expert testimony does not make any
determinations regarding the alternative outcomes with the IRS without Defendants’ alleged
professional negligence, only stating that Plaintiff was at a disadvantage by having
outstanding tax returns and an audit reconsideration would have been a quicker resolution.
At most, the opinions of Plaintiff’s expert amount to mere speculations about the possibility
of causation. See Worsham, 2006 OK 67, ¶ 32, 145 P.3d at 1065-66. Ultimately, Plaintiff
has put forth no evidence that, but for Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff would have succeeded.
In regard to two essential elements, Plaintiff has failed to present specific disputed
facts indicating a genuine issue for trial. The Court will not comb the record for arguments
4
relating to Plaintiff’s harm or whether a different outcome would have resulted if Defendants
took the actions Plaintiff alleges they should have. As the Tenth Circuit has stated, “the
district court . . . should not be cast in the role of stage director of the litigation drama–forced
to prod the actors through rehearsals until the proper performance is achieved.” Mitchell v.
City of Moore, Okla., 218 F.3d 1190, 1199 (10th Cir. 2000). Thus, Plaintiff failed to meet
his burden of presenting specific facts, referenced by specific exhibits, to overcome the
Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants are entitled to a favorable judgment as a matter
of law as to the professional negligence claim.
Breach of Contract
Defendants argue that the breach of contract claim should be decided as a matter of
law. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the Engagement Agreement (Dkt. No. 13-1)
by failing to adequately represent Plaintiff and failing to do “anything and everything
necessary to resolve your tax problems. No limits. No exclusions.” (Amended Complaint,
Dkt. No. 13, 38) (emphasis omitted). The elements of breach of contract are “1) formation
of a contract; 2) breach of the contract; and 3) damages as a direct result of the breach.”
Digital Design Grp., Inc. v. Info. Builders, Inc., 2001 OK 21, ¶ 33, 24 P.3d 834, 843.
It is undisputed that Watkins was not a party to the Engagement Agreement in his personal
capacity, and thus, Watkins is entitled to favorable judgment. The Court will examine the
breach of contract claim against the Firm.
Formation of the contract between the Firm and Plaintiff is not disputed. The next
element is whether the Firm breached the Engagement Agreement. The Court finds that
5
Plaintiff has put forth disputed, material facts regarding the scope of representation such that
triers of fact could differ regarding whether the Firm fully performed its obligations.
The final element is damages. Even if the Court assumed the Firm did breach the
Engagement Agreement, the claim must be decided as a matter of law because Plaintiff has
failed to show damages as a direct result of the breach. See Rhodes v. Bethune, No.
CIV-15-120-M, 2016 WL 4031243, at *3 (W.D. Okla. July 26, 2016) (finding that when
plaintiff could not show that his underlying claims in a legal malpractice/professional
negligence case would have prevailed, the plaintiff could not prove damages for a breach of
contract claim). Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion at issue is devoid of facts indicating the
specific damages or harm suffered. Plaintiff does state the Defendants’ decisions may not
have been the best course of action and the slow preparation of documents placed Plaintiff
at a disadvantage with the IRS, along with other procedural issues. However, the facts and
evidence fall short of showing some cognizable harm, only stating that “Plaintiff has not
settled his tax debt with the IRS through his new representatives.” (Plaintiff’s Resp., Dkt.
No. 107, p. 7.)
It is clear that some amount of tax debt was outstanding at the time Plaintiff and
Defendants began their attorney-client relationship and the debt would continue to grow
whether or not Defendants took action. What is not clear, however, is how much the debt
increased due to the delay allegedly caused by Defendants. This is similar to a case where
Judge Heaton granted summary judgment on a breach of contract claim where plaintiffs
introduced studies showing that being overcharged for health care could cause damages, but
6
no evidence was introduced showing that they actually suffered damages. Woodrum v.
Integris Health, Inc., No. CIV-05-1224-HE, 2007 WL 201045, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 24,
2007). Similarly, Plaintiff has shown problems with the IRS proceedings that could cause
damages, but there is no evidence showing that damages have actually occurred.
While Plaintiff did conventionally file a multitude of financial information, the Court
will not comb the record in an attempt to meet an essential element on Plaintiff’s behalf.
Without specific evidence of damages, the claim must fail and the Firm is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
CONCLUSION
As set forth herein, the undisputed facts demonstrate Defendants are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
No. 89) is GRANTED.
A separate judgment will issue.
STRICKEN.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2016.
7
All pending motions are
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?