RICHARD C. LUSSY, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES HENRY DAMSEL, JR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment dismissing Richard Lussy's legal malpractice suit as barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The court also sanctioned Lussy for abusing the judicial process through repeated frivolous filings, prohibiting him from filing pro se documents in the court without representation by a licensed attorney.
The trial court properly granted summary judgment because it is undisputed that Lussy failed to commence the action within the two-year statute of limitations required for legal malpractice claims. Additionally, the court sanctioned Lussy by prohibiting him from filing any further pro se legal documents in the court; any future filings must be made through a licensed attorney.
[1] A legal malpractice action is barred if not commenced prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
[2] Filing frivolous judicial pleadings with no basis in law or fact interferes with the process of judicial administration.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is undisputed that the appellant, Richard C. Lussy ("Lussy"), failed to commence this action prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Thus the trial court properly found Lussy's suit for legal malpractice barred by the two-year statute of limitations.”
Establishes the dispositive basis for affirming summary judgment—Lussy's failure to file within the statutory deadline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard C. Lussy filed a legal malpractice action against Charles Henry Damsel, Jr., but failed to commence the action before the expiration of the tw…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Frivolous Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order granting summary judgment in favor of the appellee, Charles Henry Damsel, Jr. It is undisputed that the appellant, Richard C. Lussy (“Lussy”), failed to commence this action prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Thus the trial court properly found Lus-sy’s suit for legal malpractice barred by the two-year statute of limitations. See § 95.11(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004); Slapikas v. Llorente, 766 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
It is also undisputed that Lussy has abused the processes of this Court, as well as other Courts, with his numerous frivolous filings. See Lussy v. Fourth Dist Court of Appeal, 828 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.2002). The instant appeal which consists of further incoherent and meritless arguments, provides yet another example of Mr. Lus-sy’s abuse of the legal system.
As noted by the Florida Supreme Court in Lussy v. Fourth Dist Court of Appeal, 828 So. 2d at 1027: “Abuse of the legal system is a serious matter, one that requires this Court to exercise its inherent authority to prevent ... Lussy has abused the processes of this Court with his constant filings. Accordingly, a limitation on Lussy’s ability to file would further the constitutional right of access because it would permit this Court to devote its finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims filed by others.” We now similarly determine that Lussy’s filing of frivolous judicial pleadings with no basis in law or fact interferes with the process of judicial administration and requires a restriction in this Court. See Lussy v. Fourth Dist Court of Appeal, 828 So. 2d at 1027; Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Slizyk v. Smilack, 734 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). ....
Accordingly, Lussy is hereby sanctioned and prohibited from filing any further pro se legal documents in this Court. Any legal documents shall be filed on .Lussy’s behalf only by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. Should Lussy violate this directive, he will be subject to further sanctions.
Affirmed; sanctions granted.
GERSTEN, FLETCHER and SHEPHERD, Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lussy v. Dep't of Legal Affairs, 356 So. 3d 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)…uthorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Richard Lussy, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Anita J. Patel, Assistant Bureau Chief, Tallahassee, for Appellees. 2002); Lussy v. Damsel, 890 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). We caution Mr. Lussy that such abuse of process by frivolous filings in this court could subject him to similar sanctions. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.400; Sibley v. Fla. Jud. Qualifications Comm’n, 973 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2006).…
Authorities Cited
- Montgomery Blair Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Lussy v. Fourth Dist. Court OF Appeal, 828 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 2002)
- Slizyk v. Smilack, 734 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Slapikas v. Carlos M. Llorente, P.A., 766 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)