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

JOHN MILLER, ET AL. VS MARTIN D. GROSS, ET AL.

“[A] breach of fiduciary duty is a species of tort distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence. [Citations.] The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach. [Citation.]” (Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086 [41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 768] (Stanley).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

BUCHER V. DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC.

Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 135 (statute of limitations defense tried before cross-complaint alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional negligence by accountants); Baxter v. Peterson (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 673, 679.) After consideration of the papers filed in connection with this motion, including the voluminous evidence submitted by WDPR, the Court finds that severance would not promote judicial efficiency, economy or convenience, or avoid wasting time and money.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

MADELINE MOORE VS DENNIS P RILEY ET AL

Although causation and damages are mandatory elements of breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim is not based on the same operative facts as her professional negligence claim.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

CESAR SOSA VS. PRECISE FIT LIMITED

First Cause of Action – Breach of Fiduciary Duties The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of a fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately resulting from the breach. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811., 820.) Sosa Jr. argues that he is entitled to summary adjudication of the first cause of action where Hernandez fails to allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship between Sosa Jr. and Hernandez.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BUCHER V. DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC.

Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 135 (statute of limitations defense tried before cross-complaint alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional negligence by accountants); Baxter v. Peterson (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 673, 679.) After consideration of the papers filed in connection with this motion, including the voluminous evidence submitted by WDPR, the Court finds that severance would not promote judicial efficiency, economy or convenience, or avoid wasting time and money.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

ERNEST JOLLY VS. TREVOR QUIRK

The court overrules the general demurrer to Plaintiff's fifth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, on the grounds that (a) breach of fiduciary constitutes a distinct theory from professional negligence (see, e.g., Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086-1087); and (b) therefore, Plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty is not "subsumed" in Plaintiff's legal malpractice claim. Plaintiff may file and serve a First Amended Complaint by no later than March 23, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MELINDA BAKER, ET AL. VS DARRELL AVISS, ET AL.

Code §496), (5) breach of fiduciary duty, (6) professional negligence, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (8) violation of Corp. Code section 25501.5. The FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows. Plaintiffs are the victims of a Ponzi scheme by the main bad actor, Defendant Aviss, who carried out his scheme through his alter ego entities, Aviss Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

procedural history Whitcombe filed the Complaint on April 30, 2019, and then filed the FAC without seeking leave from the Court on September 16, 2019, alleging two causes of action: Professional Negligence Breach of Fiduciary Duty Olan filed the present Motion to Strike Portions of the FAC on November 22, 2019. Brockmeier filed the present Motion to Strike Portions of the FAC on December 11, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

ELSIE F ROMERO VS THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH R. MANNING, JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPOR, ET AL.

Manning, Jr. for (1) legal malpractice and (2) breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleges that she owns and resides in the property located at 221 S. Irena Ave., #A, Redondo Beach. In 2011, she was laid off from her job and suffered a financial hardship as a result. Accordingly, plaintiff sought mortgage assistance from her lender, Wells Fargo. In May 2012, she was granted a forbearance by Wells Fargo while it considered her for a loan modification. In November 2014, Wells Fargo denied her application.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EMRANI VS GOODMAN MD

The First Amended Complaint alleges two causes of action against Goodman – Medical Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Lack of Informed Consent. Goodman demurrers only to the cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Lack of Informed Consent. Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070 explains, a breach of fiduciary duty is a species of tort distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence. (Barbara A. v. John G. (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 369, 382-383 [193 Cal.Rptr. 422]; cf. Budd v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADAM ASHBY, ET AL. VS HENRY NIVICHANOV, ET AL.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain. (CCP § 430.10(e), (f).) The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: “(1) existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach.” (Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

BRETT VAPNEK, ET AL. VS GABRIEL Z. REYNOSO, ET AL.

Claims To Be Arbitrated Plaintiffs allege three causes of action: (1) professional negligence; (2) breach of contract; and (3) breach of fiduciary duty. All of these causes of action are based on Defendants’ representation of Plaintiffs in an underlying action. (Complaint ¶¶ 1-2.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SUSAN HARMAN VS GORDON H SASAKI, ET AL.

MOTION TO STRIKE BY SASAKI DEFENDANTS The Sasaki defendants seek to strike allegations regarding punitive damages, specifically paragraph 55 in the Breach of Fiduciary Duty cause of action and the paragraph 80 in the Fraud cause of action. Because the Court has sustained the demurrer to the Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Fraud causes of action, the motion is DENIED as MOOT. III. DEMURRER OF DEFENDAN HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL First Cause of Action (Medical Malpractice).

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JEE YONG SHIN ET AL VS HILTON & HYLAND REAL ESTATE ET AL

The Shin/Shinn FAC asserts causes of action for (1) professional negligence, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) unauthorized practice of law. The Shin/Shinn FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows. H&H is a licensed real estate broker, and Lascano is a licensed real estate agent employed by H&H.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALEKSANDR AVETISYAN, VS EDGAR MEHDIKHANI,

The complaint alleges medical battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and lack of informed consent. The complaint also alleges Defendant deficiently performed a colonoscopy on August 12, 2017. On February 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and lack of informed consent.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS INC VS MIAO [E-FILE]

TENTATIVE RULING The demurrer of cross-defendant Paul Hastings LLP ("Paul Hastings") to defendants/cross-complainants Gang "Gary" Chen and Zhenwei "David" Miao's claims in their second amended cross-complaint ("SACC") for negligent and intentional misrepresentation (ninth cause of action), the tenth cause of action for concealment, professional negligence (twelfth cause of action), and breach of fiduciary duty (thirteenth cause of action) is overruled. Judicial notice is granted as requested.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS INC VS MIAO [E-FILE]

TENTATIVE RULING The demurrer of cross-defendant Paul Hastings LLP ("Paul Hastings") to defendants/cross-complainants Gang "Gary" Chen and Zhenwei "David" Miao's claims in their second amended cross-complaint ("SACC") for negligent and intentional misrepresentation (ninth cause of action), the tenth cause of action for concealment, professional negligence (twelfth cause of action), and breach of fiduciary duty (thirteenth cause of action) is overruled. Judicial notice is granted as requested.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

COLLEEN CHAPMAN VS NORTHWEST SURGICAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty (7th cause of action) To state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship; (2) its breach; and (3) damage proximately caused by that breach. (Roberts v. Lomanto (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1553, 1562.) Defendants demur to this cause of action, arguing that Plaintiff has not identified what fiduciary duty they owed her. The doctor-patient relationship is fiduciary in nature. (See Hahn v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GRACE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. V. MARK T. COFFIN, ET AL.

The basis for the professional negligence claims (whether denominated as negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of contract) is that Coffin breached his professional duties to GDA by his representation of the Monroes in the Monroe Action. (FAC, ¶¶ 16-23.) Coffin substituted out of the Monroe Action on September 16, 2016. This action was filed on September 18, 2019, more than one year after the alleged wrongful acts last occurred.

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2020

NICOLE LOUISE SCRANTON ET AL VS MOUHANAD ALWAN MD ET AL

(“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. On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Pendency of Action.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

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. On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Pendency of Action.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

IRENE LOPEZ, ET AL. VS. BONAVENTURA REALTY, INC., ET AL.

.; Breach of fiduciary duty; and Breach of statutory escrow duties Defendants Realty Escrow Company Escrow, aka Realty Escrow Corporation, and Roberto Melchor demur to the SAC. An opposition and reply have been filed and considered. For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules the demurrer. Standard A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SAMANTHA CHILDS VS POLANSKY

Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290, which provides as follows: Regardless, as Parth argues, the cause of action for breach of governing documents appears to be duplicative of the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. This court has recognized this as a basis for sustaining a demurrer. (See Rodrigues v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THOMAS GONZALES VS KIMBERLY OLSON LIND, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s claims are (1) professional negligence; (2) fraud and deceit; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) conversion; and (6) financial elder abuse. The arbitration agreement facially covers claims of malpractice (first cause of action).

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

SAMANTHA CHILDS VS POLANSKY

Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290, which provides as follows: Regardless, as Parth argues, the cause of action for breach of governing documents appears to be duplicative of the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. This court has recognized this as a basis for sustaining a demurrer. (See Rodrigues v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 32     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.