CHARLESTON – The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has affirmed a judgment in favor of several Charleston attorneys in an appeal alleging legal malpractice during the water crisis litigation that recently settled.
Richard Gravely appealed two orders of Kanawha Circuit Court.
In the first order, entered Dec. 6, 2018, the Circuit Court awarded Anthony J. Majestro, Marvin W. Masters and Benjamin L. Bailey summary judgment on Gravely's claim that they committed legal malpractice.
In the second order, entered Jan. 7, 2019, the Circuit Court denied the petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the first order.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's orders, according to the Dec. 20 memorandum decision.
Gravely filed a complaint in Kanawha Circuit Court on Oct. 1, 2018, claiming the Circuit Court liberally construed as asserting a legal malpractice claim against respondents.
"Previously, respondents filed a motion to dismiss petitioner’s action against West Virginia American Water Co. alleging that his drinking water was contaminated by the chemical spill that occurred in Kanawha County in January of 2014," the decision stated. "As class counsel in Good v. West Virginia American Water Co. ... respondents were required to seek the dismissal of petitioner’s action by the June 6, 2018, order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, which approved the settlement of the class action and directed that all individual actions by members of the class be dismissed."
Kanawha Circuit Court dismissed Gravely's separate action against the water company on Sept. 28, 2018, and denied his motion to alter or amend the dismissal order on Oct. 2, 2018. In the Oct. 2, 2018, order, the Circuit Court found that, “[b]ecause [petitioner] did not opt out, object[,] or appeal the class action settlement in [Good], he is now bound by its terms, and this [c]ourt no longer has jurisdiction in [petitioner]’s case."
Gravely then filed the action against Majestro, Masters and Bailey. The attorneys filed motions to dismiss the action and then filed a motion for summary judgment on the petitioner’s claim that they committed legal malpractice. The Circuit Court held a hearing on various motions on Dec. 3, 2018.
The Circuit Court denied the motion to dismiss the petitioner's action as moot because it granted his motion for summary judgment. The Circuit Court determined that the record did not support Gravely's claim of legal malpractice.
"We address together the Circuit Court's award of summary judgment and its denial of the motion to alter or amend the judgment," the decision states.
On appeal, the petitioner argued that he was not a member of the class in Good. The Supreme Court found that the Circuit Court properly rejected this argument as “contradictory at best and fallacious at worst.”
"Based upon our review of the record, we find that petitioner failed to opt out of the class in Good prior to the federal district court’s final approval of the settlement," the Supreme Court wrote. "As a result, petitioner became bound by its terms. We further find that the district court’s June 6, 2018, order required respondents to seek the dismissal of petitioner’s separate action against the water company."
The Supreme Court determined that Gravely cannot show that the attorneys breached any duty allegedly owed to him.
"Accordingly, we conclude that the Circuit Court did not err in finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that respondents were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law," it wrote.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 19-0030