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

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

    Jan 21, 2020

MOHAMMAD RAHMANI NEJAD VS HOSSEIN F BERENJI, ET AL.

Specifically, Plaintiff brings the following causes of action in the FAC: 1) Professional Negligence: against Berenji 2) Legal Malpractice: - Breach of Fiduciary Duty: against Berenji 3) Intentional Fraud: against Carson, Abernathy & Zuckerman 4) Conspiracy to Commit Fraud: against Carson, Abernathy & Zuckerman 5) Aiding & Abetting: against Carson & Abernathy 6) Bribery: against Carson, Abernathy & Zuckerman 7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: against Berenji, Carson, Abernathy & Zuckerman

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARGARET A DELIS ET AL VS MONTECITO FINANCIAL SERVICES INC E

The FAC brings thirteen causes of action for 1) Conspiracy to Defraud; 2) Fraud; 3) Securities Fraud; 4) Conversion; 5) Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200; 6) Breach of Written Contract; 7) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 8) Elder Financial Abuse; 9) Dependent Adult Financial Abuse; 10) Professional Negligence; 11) Negligent Misrepresentation; 12) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 13) Accounting.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADAMS V. FINKELSTEIN 1:30 P.M.

The Complaint, filed on 11-13-18, alleges two causes of action for Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Based on Plaintiff’s (Jack Adams) Opposition to Motion of Defendants Sharon Anderson and Holstrom, Block & Parke for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication (Opposition), filed on 12-27-19, it does not appear that Plaintiff disputes that Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 applies to both causes of action. Kracht v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

TERI STEELMAN, ET AL. VS MARVIN S. SHEBBY, A LAW CORPORATION, ET AL.

First, as to the scope of the leave to amend, this Court had not passed judgment on whether Plaintiffs could allege a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. It had noted only that Plaintiffs had represented that they did not intend to allege a separate cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. It did not forbid Plaintiffs to do so.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

ROSEMARY PERERA ET AL VS LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY ET AL

The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) asserts causes of action for (1) negligent misrepresentation, (2) professional negligence, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) quasi-contract, and (5) financial elder abuse.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

EMMA ANGELICA MCKINNON VS MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

The Complaint alleges five causes of action for: 1) professional negligence; 2) breach of fiduciary duty; 3) Financial Elder Abuse; 4) Intentional Deceit/Fraud; and 5) Declaratory Relief. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is an elder and a widow who was the victim of an investment scam by Defendants. She generally alleges that after her husband’s death, she was emotionally and mentally vulnerable and Defendant took advantage of her.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHAD RUSKEY VS JORDAN HAMBURGER, ET AL.

Claims To Be Arbitrated Plaintiff alleges causes of action for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2019

MOHAMMAD RAHMANI NEJAD VS HOSSEIN F BERENJI, ET AL.

Specifically, Plaintiff brings the following causes of action in the FAC: Professional Negligence: against Berenji Legal Malpractice: - Breach of Fiduciary Duty: against Berenji Intentional Fraud: against Carson, Abernathy & Zuckerman Conspiracy to Commit Fraud: against Carson, Abernathy & Zuckerman Aiding & Abetting: against Carson & Abernathy Bribery: against Carson, Abernathy & Zuckerman Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: against Berenji, Carson, Abernathy & Zuckerman Negligent Infliction

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRUCE GORDON ET AL VS ERVIN COHEN & JESSUP LLP ET AL

Breach of Fiduciary Duty However, Plaintiffs offer no authority that a fiduciary duty normally imposed between an attorney and clients extends to intended beneficiaries. As they put it, an attorney owes fiduciary duties to clients. (Cox v. Delmas (1893) 99 Cal. 104, 123.) Plaintiffs insist that they were Defendants’ clients. (Compl. ¶ 52.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2019

HOSSEIN FATEHMANESH VS DAVID LALLY

Second Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty The elements for a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action are “the existence of a fiduciary relationship, its breach, and damage proximately caused by that breach.” (Thomson v. Canyon (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 594, 604.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MITCHELL MIDDLETON VS MICHAEL D WAKS ET AL

PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, asserting five causes of action: Breach of contract Professional negligence Breach of fiduciary duty Conversion (only against Barrett) Rescission of Fee Agreement On July 12, 2018, Waks filed an Answer to the Complaint. On July 30, 2018, Barrett filed an Answer to the Complaint. On February 11, 2019, Bish filed an Answer to the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

MARIA DIAZ, ET AL. VS CHANTISTE BEAL, D.M.D., ET AL.

Lack of informed consent is not a separate “cause of action,” but may be pled as a separate “count” under the 5th cause of action for professional negligence. Therefore, the Clerk is ordered to strike the “6th cause of action” by interlineation, and as corrected, demurrer is OVERRULED. FOURTH and FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION – Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Professional Negligence Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence are duplicative.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

.; Breach of fiduciary duty; and Breach of statutory escrow duties Defendants Alvin Fugate (Doe 1) and Eileen Vargas (Doe 2) move separately to set aside their respective entries of default. As of December 9, 2019, no opposition has been received. Standard Within six months of a judgment, order, dismissal, or other proceeding taken against a party, a court may relieve the party from that proceeding if it resulted from their mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (C.C.P., § 473(b).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2019

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DENISE THOMAS ET AL VS ELIZABETH CASTANEDA

However, Plaintiffs’ FAC is devoid of any factual allegations of misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, infliction of emotional distress, or interference with business relations based on unprotected activity.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DANA WANG V. ESTATE OF PAUL S. NESSE, ET AL.

The second cause of action is for Professional Negligence, alleging (FAC at ¶21) that Mr. Nesse “failed to competently provide legal representation” to Plaintiff in the marital dissolution action. The third cause of action is for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, alleging (FAC at ¶¶29-30) that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

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

    Dec 03, 2019

TONY ATALLAH ET AL VS BURLISON LAW GROUP ET AL

Breach of Fiduciary Duty “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.” (Gutierrez v. Girardi (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 925, 932.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2019

MEIKLE VS GREEN

MPs argue that, even without Broadway, the facts alleged still do not state a breach of fiduciary duty COA. They are correct. Although COA 2, as described in the FAC at ¶ 18, primarily reasserts the allegations from COA 1, it also alleges that the “Defendants” intentionally misled and concealed facts from Plaintiff about his case. Such conduct may suffice to state a distinct breach of fiduciary duty claim.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2019

CHATEAU LAKESIDE PARTNERS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION VS FREDERICK L. SPINRAD, ESQ., AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

“[A] breach of fiduciary duty is a species of tort distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence.” (Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1535.) “Disgorgement of fees may be an appropriate remedy for an attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty.” (Id.) “The measure of damages in a legal malpractice action involving an attorney’s failure to bring a claim is the value of the claim lost.” (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 979.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

CHATEAU LAKESIDE PARTNERS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION VS FREDERICK L. SPINRAD, ESQ., AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

“[A] breach of fiduciary duty is a species of tort distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence.” (Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1535.) “Disgorgement of fees may be an appropriate remedy for an attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty.” (Id.) “The measure of damages in a legal malpractice action involving an attorney’s failure to bring a claim is the value of the claim lost.” (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 979.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

WARDWELL VS VERTICAL INFILL INC

Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient to support each element for negligence and/or professional negligence. The Demurrer to the 3rd cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is overruled. The Demurer to the 4th cause of action for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty is sustained as to Venus Burns as there are no facts she aided and abetted any breach of fiduciary duty owed to plaintiff by Brian Burns. Leave to amend is granted.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WARDWELL VS VERTICAL INFILL INC

Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient to support each element for negligence and/or professional negligence. The Demurrer to the 3rd cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is overruled. The Demurer to the 4th cause of action for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty is sustained as to Venus Burns as there are no facts she aided and abetted any breach of fiduciary duty owed to plaintiff by Brian Burns. Leave to amend is granted.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JAMMIE A. HILL VS BEACH CITY TREATMENT, LLC, ET AL.

General & Professional Negligence 2. Int. Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) 3. Battery 4. Sexual Battery (CC §1708.5) 5. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 6. Sexual Harassment (CC §51.98) 7. Negligence Per Se 8.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VANNA P REGNER AS TRUSTEE OF THE VANNA P REGNER TRUST VS LEE & ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC

On May 23, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint for professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, bad faith and elder abuse. Plaintiff executed a CCP § 998 offer on January 31, 2019 just prior to the trial readiness conference on February 1, 2019. On February 1, at the trial readiness conference, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a compromise.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • 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.