What is a breach of fiduciary duty?

Useful Rulings on Professional Negligence – Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Recent Rulings on Professional Negligence – Breach of Fiduciary Duty

AMANDA TULLER ET AL VS GOLDEN BEAR CAPITAL INC

On 2/24/20, this Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to all causes of action in the First Amended Complaint and granted Plaintiffs 30 days leave to amend and granted Plaintiffs’ request for leave to include a cause of action for professional negligence. (RJN, Ex. D). On 3/30/20, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint which contains causes of action for: (1) breach of contract (implied and oral); (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) professional negligence.

  • Hearing

PEGGYE MARTIN ET AL VS IBIERE SECK ET AL

The FAC alleges causes of action for constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence- legal malpractice, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Respondents the Cochran Firm (now “Defendant”) filed an answer to the FAC on November 20, 2019, asserting thirty-four (34) affirmative defenses. On November 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal, indicating that Delray Bradley would no longer participate in this action.

  • Hearing

JANE ROE VS JAMES A MACER, M.D., ET AL.

In Plaintiff's July 25, 2019 ("First Amended Complaint"), she alleges four causes of action: (1) professional negligence; (2) battery (as to Dr. Macer only); (3) breach of fiduciary duty; and (4) concealment. PRESENTATION: On August 29, 2019, the Court sustained Huntington's demurrer as to the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and the concealment cause of action, with leave to amend. No amendment was filed. The sole remaining cause of action is now the professional negligence cause of action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CA RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITY FUND LP VS NELSON

The Sixth Cause Of Action For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty The FAC alleges that the fiduciary relationship arose from the Operating Agreements whereby Moving Defendants' acted as INDY I's manager. [SS ¶ 130.] However, Mt. Helix was INDY I's Manager and Moving Defendants did not assume Mt. Helix's fiduciary obligation. [Delaware Code Annotated title 6, section 18-303; see also Corp. C. § 17703.04(a).]

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GEOFFREY BENNETT, AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR CLEAVES M. BENNETT, AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE CLEAVES M. BENNETT LIVING TRUST VS ELIZABETH CHAI-CHANG, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty). “The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, and damages.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 820.) Defendant argues that this cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty is three years or four years, depending on whether the breach is fraudulent or nonfraudulent.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

OSUNA V. CHALEKSON

Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which seeks to add causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, intentional concealment, and violations of business and professions code section 17200 et seq. Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with Dr. Chalekson’s counsel prior to filing this motion and requested that Dr. Chalekson stipulate to the filing of the SAC, but Dr. Chalekson would not so stipulate. Dr.

  • Hearing

RYAN HARPER ET AL VS MANHATTAN INN OPERATING COMPANY LLC

Plaintiffs allege that Eleventh, Seventeenth, and Eighteen causes of action (conspiracy, professional negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty) against the Pico defendants, who were MIOC’s accountants. The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ claims is that in 2010, Pico participated in a scheme to dilute Plaintiffs’ shares.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

VIRGINA ASSET PARTNERS, LLC VS USM INVESTMENTS, INC.

(“Jade”) and Roes 1-20 for: Breach of Contract Fraud Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Rescission Breach of Fiduciary Duty Breach of Contract Professional Negligence On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed two “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Herman Carrillo was named in lieu of Doe 1 and Rosemary Carrillo was named in lieu of Doe 2. A Trial Setting Conference is set for November 6, 2020.

  • Hearing

DAVID Y NAKATSU VS YUSI LIAO

Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.6, subdivision (a) applies to claims of “breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the performance of an attorney’s professional duties.” (Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1121.) The court notes that the parties’ arbitration has no bearing on whether the cause of action is related to malpractice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DAD V. SCHWARTZ

Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Ninth Cause of Action) A claim for breach of fiduciary duty by a patient against his physician may only be premised on an allegation relative to a lack of informed consent. (See Jameson v. Desta (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1164.) "A physician has a fiduciary duty to disclose all information material to the patient's decision," when soliciting a patient's consent to a medical procedure. (Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 129.)

  • Hearing

TAYLOR JACKSON VS ANTHONY MISITANO, ET AL.

This subdivision shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295. (CCP § 1281.2.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TAYLOR JACKSON VS ANTHONY MISITANO, ET AL.

This subdivision shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295. (CCP § 1281.2.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NICOLE MAYS VS MORTGAGE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL.

On October 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint for wrongful foreclosure, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence (fourth cause of action), unfair business practices, promissory estoppel, cancellation of instruments, conversion, negligence (ninth cause of action), negligence (tenth cause of action), professional negligence (eleventh cause of action), and breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE DOE, ET AL. VS PEYMAN SAADAT, ET AL.

Such conduct is a breach of the Defendants’ fiduciary duty of disclosure and would support a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SAGE M. MCADAMS VS KIUMARS ARFAI, ET AL.

The allegations made by Plaintiff relate to her claim for professional negligence. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state the 3rd cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Due to the liberal policy of allowing leave to amend and because this is only the original complaint, Plaintiff is given the opportunity to try to cure the defects in this cause of action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NICOLE MAYS VS MORTGAGE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL.

On October 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint for wrongful foreclosure, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence (fourth cause of action), unfair business practices, promissory estoppel, cancellation of instruments, conversion, negligence (ninth cause of action), negligence (tenth cause of action), professional negligence (eleventh cause of action), and breach of fiduciary duty. RULING: Moot.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

NOEL C. MCDAID, ET AL. VS ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on September 21, 2020, and asserts causes of action for (1) professional negligence, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) intentional deceit/fraud.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARLENE LEIVA VS NIRUP REDDY, ET AL.

On August 20, 2020, Nirup Reddy and Bortay Dehnadi filed a cross-complaint against Lou Bermudez and Marlene Leiva for (1), (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3), (4) fraud, (5) professional negligence, (6) negligence, (7) conversion, (8) wrongful eviction, (9) professional negligence (legal malpractice), (10) violation of Bus. and Prof. Code 6148, and (11) breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JEREMIAH LANGER, ET AL. VS OMAR MINWALLA, ET AL.

The Complaint alleges causes of action against Omar Minwalla, The Institute for Sexual Health, and Does 1 -100 for (1) malpractice, (2) “willful and reckless disregard,” (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) breach of fiduciary duty; and (6) fraudulent concealment. On October 13, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed the two minors, Max and Henry Langer, from the complaint.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

WILD CHANG ET AL VS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY INC ET AL

Plaintiffs Chang and Kenneth Lo’s (“Lo”) Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (2) breach of contract, (3) unfair business practices (Business and Professions Code § 17200), (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, (6) professional negligence. Defendants Fire Insurance Exchange Corporation (“FIE”) and Stacy Chern (“Chern”) are also named in the Complaint.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FAIRBROOK PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DON HOSEA WILLIAMS, ET AL.

On April 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Relief, Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Constructive Fraud, Professional Negligence, and Misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FAIRBROOK PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DON HOSEA WILLIAMS, ET AL.

On April 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Relief, Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Constructive Fraud, Professional Negligence, and Misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JANE ROE VS JAMES A MACER, M.D., ET AL.

In Roe's July 25, 2019 First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), she alleges four (4) causes of action sounding in: (1) Professional Negligence; (2) Battery (as to Dr. Macer only); (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (4) Concealment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

T. C., AN INDIVIDUAL, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, M.C. VS GRIFFITH PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER, BUSINESS FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

Plaintiff does not provide any authority, and the Court has found none, to indicate that the failure to provide necessary care at a health facility constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty. (See Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086 [“[B]reach of fiduciary duty is a species of tort distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence”].) The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is SUSTAINED. IV.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GITI SHOUSHANI VS SHAVER KORFF CASTRONOVO LLP, ET AL.

The FAC alleges the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) professional negligence; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) financial elder abuse. Defendants filed a motion for an order compelling Plaintiff to produce verifications with respect to her responses to Defendants’: (1) special interrogatories (set one); (2) form interrogatories (set one); (3) requests for admission (set one); and (4) request for production of documents (set one).

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.