In Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, the original complaint included a single cause of action for "'General Negligence,'" and alleged that within the last year, "'Defendants, as Plaintiffs' attorneys, failed to use due care'" in the handling of real estate litigation. (Id. at p. 271.) Plaintiffs filed numerous amended complaints, which set forth specific examples of how the attorneys had allegedly breached the standard of care. (Id. at pp. 271-272.) The trial court found that a number of the claims were time barred and concluded that these claims did not relate back to the original complaint "because it was 'void of operative facts.'" (Id. at p. 273.) The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the malpractice was based on a single litigation matter and the original pleading set forth the title of that litigation, putting the defendants "on notice that the professional negligence claim was based on its representation of plaintiffs in this case, and of the need to gather and preserve evidence relating to this representation." (Id. at p. 278.) The court elaborated, "Although the original complaint did not detail how the firm had allegedly breached the standard of care, the form complaint and the fourth amended complaint rested on the same general set of facts . . . , involved the same injury (monetary damages sustained as a result of alleged professional negligence), and referred to the same instrumentality (alleged professional negligence)." (Ibid.)