Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 05-1128
TIMOTHY R. RANNEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PRISCILLA D. NELSON,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CA-04-1274-1)
Argued:
February 2, 2006
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Timothy R. Ranney appeals from the order of the
district court dismissing his action against Appellee Priscilla D.
Nelson for professional malpractice and conspiracy.
We affirm in
I.
In July 2000, Ranneys wife Carol began individual therapy
sessions with Nelson, a licensed professional counselor.
On a
told Nelson that Ranney would not have married [her] had he known
about
her
four
prior
marriages,
and
directed
Nelson
not
to
Ranney
received
substantial
J.A. 6.
stock
Prior to marrying
options
in
Network
Ranney
obtained
Nelsons
purported
During divorce
joint
therapy
Ranney asserts
In March 2003,
told Ranney that she had been married only once before.
In
that Nelson violated the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, see Va.
Code Ann. 59.1-200.14; (2) that Nelson breached a general legal
duty to produce genuine documents pursuant to the subpoena issued
by Ranney in the divorce proceedings; (3) that Nelson fraudulently
concealed her genuine session notes during the divorce proceedings;
(4) that Nelson breached professional duties owed to Ranney as his
licensed therapist and therefore committed malpractice; and (5)
that Nelson engaged in a conspiracy with Carol to produce false
documents and conceal genuine documents.
demurrer
sustained
to
all
counts
asserted
as
the
except
malpractice.
The
to
court
cause
by
granted
of
Ranney,
action
Ranney
leave
which
for
to
the
court
professional
replead
the
J.A. 9-11.
Ranney premised these claims on the theory that Nelson had a duty,
contends
that
had
Nelson
properly
J.A. 6.
discharged
her
J.A. 7.
The
Nelson
in
state
court,
began
with
Nelsons
alleged
misconduct during the summer of 2000 when Ranney and Carol were
both receiving counseling from Nelson.
II.
Virginia law imposes a general two-year limitations period for
bringing actions for personal injuries: Unless otherwise provided
in this section or by other statute, every action for personal
injuries, whatever the theory of recovery, . . . shall be brought
within two years after the cause of action accrues.
8.01-243.A.
to
property,
Va.
Code
Ann.
8.01-243.B,
such
as
contract, the limitations period is three years. See Va. Code Ann.
8.01-246.4.
as
opposed
discovered.
to
when
the
wrong
is
or
should
have
been
The district
over two years before Ranney filed this action, the district court
concluded the claim was time-barred.
malpractice,
which
falls
within
the
two-year
period
The district
8.01-243.C.2.
Nevertheless,
the
district
court
held
that
J.A. 104.
We cannot agree.
control
our
analysis
for
purposes
of
identifying
the
594 S.E.2d 606, 608-09 (Va. 2004). Section 8.01-243.B applies when
the alleged wrongdoing was aimed at the property itself.
609.
Id. at
limitations
period
is
the
three-year
period
that
See Va.
both claims are premised upon the alleged breach of duties that
Nelson
owed
Ranney
as
his
therapist,
regardless
of
Ranneys
Ranney does not allege that she breached any duty arising as a
matter of law, and in that respect Ranneys claim (for statute of
limitations purposes) is much like one for legal malpractice.
In
Weaver Co., 365 S.E.2d 764, 766 (Va. 1988) ([T]he contract statute
of limitations applies to an action to recover for the professional
negligence of an attorney, despite the fact that the motion for
judgment was framed in tort.) with Castillo, 372 F.3d at 646.
We agree with the district court that Ranneys allegations do
not state an injury to property for purposes of determining the
applicable limitations period.
whether the claims at bar are technically more akin to claims for
medical
malpractice
or
breach
of
contract.
In
either
case,
are time-barred for the reasons stated by the district court in its
order of dismissal.
on
oral
contracts.
See
Va.
Code
Ann.
8.01-246(4).
III.
The district court dismissed Ranneys conspiracy claim on res
judicata grounds.
A party seeking
Id.
10
Allstar Towing,
Ranneys
federal
conspiracy
claim
alleges
that
J.A. 11.
this claim involves Nelsons actions during or near the time of the
joint
therapy
disposed
of
sessions
by
the
in
2000.
state
court
The
prior
focused
on
conspiracy
Nelsons
claim
alleged
11
We take no
IV.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the dismissal of
Ranneys
claims
for
injury
malpractice as time-barred.
to
property
and
continuing
AFFIRMED IN PART,
REVERSED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
12