Want v. Frei et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION re Motion for summary judgment. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 1/23/17. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff by chambers.(klau, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
STEVEN MARK FREI, et aL,
PlaintiffJerome Want ("plaintiff" or "Want"), gro se, has filed a six-count complaint
alleging malpractice^ and firaud byhis former attorney Steven Mark Frei ("Frei"), and Frei's law
firm Sickles, Frei & Mims, P.C., (collectively with Frei, "defendants"), arising out of Frei's
representation of Want in a personal injury action filed in the Arlington County Circuit Court.
Plaintiff seeks damages of at least $2.59 million plus prejudgment interest at a rate of 12%.
16-23. Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion"), to which
plaintiffhas filed a response.^ The Court finds that oral argument would not aid the decisional
process. For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion will be granted.
^Want divides his malpractice claim among five counts: Count 1(Failure to Provide a Minimum
Standard of Care); Count 2 (Malpractice); Count 4 (Breach of Contract); Count 5 (NonFeasance); and Count 6 (Malfeasance). Compl.
^Although defendants served plaintiff with a Roseboro notice along with their motion, advising
him that he must "identify all facts stated by Defendants with which [he] disagree[s] and set forth
[his] version of the facts by offering affidavits (written statements signed before a notary public
and imder oath) or by filing sworn statements (bearing a certificate that is signed under penalty
ofpeijury)," plaintiffs response consists solely of argument, failing to cite any evidence in the
record, see generally PI. 0pp. [Dkt. 64]. Moreover, those arguments have not been submitted
imder penalty of peijury. See id.
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?