Moskovits v. McGlinchey

Case: 24-20295 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 24-20295 Summary Calendar

FILED April 21, 2025

____________

Lyle W. Cayce Alexander Moskovits, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant, versus

McGlinchey Stafford PLLC; Nicholas R. O’Conner; Matt D. Manning,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CV-3746

______________________________

Before Smith, Clement, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Proceeding pro se, Alexander Moskovits appeals the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of his civil action against the law firm McGlinchey Stafford PLLC and two attorneys from that firm, Matt D. Case: 24-20295 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2025

No. 24-20295 Manning and Nicholas R. O’Conner. 1 Moskovits raised claims of fraud on the court, intrinsic fraud, and defamation stemming from the defendants’ representation of their client in a separate lawsuit filed by Moskovits.

Moskovits urges that the district court erred in finding that attorney immunity barred his defamation and fraud claims. However, he has not shown any error because Texas law is clear that attorney immunity extends to the conduct of which he complains. See Landry’s Inc. v. Animal Legal Def. Fund, 631 S.W.3d 40, 51 (Tex. 2021) (“[T]he protections of attorney immunity apply more broadly to include actions and conduct engaged in by attorneys for their clients pursuant to the attorney’s office, professional training, skill, and authority.” (cleaned up)) (quoting Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477, 482 (Tex. 2015); see also Cantey, 467 S.W.3d at 481, 483–84.

Accordingly, we need not consider the district court’s alternative reasons for dismissal. See Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.