Want v. Frei et al

Filing 66

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, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division JEROME WANT, Plaintiff, l:16-cv-660(LMB/IDD) V. STEVEN MARK FREI, et aL, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION 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%. Compl. 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. 16-17; 20-22. ^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?