Monib Zirvi v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, et al.

Question 1 Whether the circuit court improperly determined that a subsequent pleading rather than the initial complaint, is the operative bar date for claim preclusion in conflict with Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322 (1955), Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., 590 U.S. 405 (2020), and the Third Circuit’s own precedent in Morgan v. Covington Township, 648 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2011). Question 2 Whether the Due Process Clause is violated when a court dismisses a legal-malpractice claim with prejudice at the pleading stage by resolving a disputed factual issue concerning the existence of an attorney–client relationship against the plaintiff, notwithstanding documentary evidence submitted in opposition to dismissal, without leave to amend. Question 3 W hether, under Semtek Inter national Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001), federal courts must apply the forum state’s claim-preclusion and accrual rules when evaluating state-law professionalmalpractice claims, rather than federal common-law preclusion principles.