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

751-775 of 783 results

MATTER OF THE PATTON FAMILY LEAD TRUST DTD 2/21/03

Among those legal theories include ordinary negligence and breach of fiduciary duty counts. In both counts, Sally alleges that defendant Sherwood, as the Pattons' attorney, "negligently and careless failed to adequately and properly prepare an estate plan for the Pattons reflecting the true intent of the trustor". (FAC, ¶¶ 165a; 179a).

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2012

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

MATTER OF THE PATTON FAMILY LEAD TRUST DTD 2/21/03

Among those legal theories include ordinary negligence and breach of fiduciary duty counts. In both counts, Sally alleges that defendant Sherwood, as the Pattons' attorney, "negligently and careless failed to adequately and properly prepare an estate plan for the Pattons reflecting the true intent of the trustor". (FAC, ¶¶ 165a; 179a).

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2012

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

WARD RAISIN ET AL VS KIMBERLY SWENEY ET AL

Vonderweidt demurrer The SAC asserts causes of action for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against attorney Vonderweidt. Those causes of action incorporate by reference all prior allegations, which includes the general factual allegations section, and the 1st through 3rd causes of action (1st c/a—breach of contract against K.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT ET AL VS PRICE POSTEL & PARMA ETC

Plaintiffs request an award of punitive damages only with respect to their second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants argue that the allegations are insufficient to allege a claim for punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2012

DAVID GIZZI VS RANDALL ROZEK ET AL

Demurrer All defendants demur to all but the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action in the complaint. Defendants contend that the causes of action are uncertain and that plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute the causes of action. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Apr 10, 2012

TROY HOIDAL VS GOTFREDSON & ASSOCIATES ET AL

On September 15, 2011, Hoidal filed the present action against defendants for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. Hoidal alleges that defendants were negligent in failing to serve Ecopod in the underlying action, which resulted in a dismissal of his cross-claims. Hoidal contends that had his cross-claims not been dismissed, he would have prevailed in the underlying litigation.

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2012

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MARK M BRYNER VS. JACQULINE S MCHANEY

Further, a breach of fiduciary duty claim is distinct from a professional negligence cause of action. (Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086.) No authority is presented which demonstrates that emotional distress damages may not be sought in connection with either an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action or a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2012

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARK M BRYNER VS. JACQULINE S MCHANEY

Plaintiff alleges causes of action for professional negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence per se in connection with Defendant's representation of Plaintiff in a criminal case. First Cause of Action (Professional Negligence) Defendant's demurrer is overruled. Plaintiff has alleged facts demonstrating he was damaged as a result of Defendant's alleged breach of professional duty.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2012

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MEGAN AMSLER ET AL VS FELL MARKING ABKIN MONTGOMERY ETC

) (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty Defendant Fell Marking seeks to adjudicate plaintiffs’ action for breach of fiduciary duty, but does not challenge in this motion plaintiffs’ claim for professional negligence. “[A] breach of fiduciary duty is a species of tort distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2012

WARD RAISIN ET AL VS KIMBERLY SWENEY ET AL

The proposed SAC also will add causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence (legal malpractice), breach of fiduciary duty (against general counsel), declaratory relief, constructive trust, and accounting. It removes causes of action for partition by sale, and for appointment of receiver. Plaintiffs state that the proposed SAC significantly modifies each page, paragraph, and line within the first amended complaint.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JOSEPH CHANG MD ET AL VS NORMAN DAVIS

Plaintiffs’ third cause of action is for breach of fiduciary duty. “To establish a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of that duty and damages.” (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 182.) Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty based upon the same claims of misconduct as form the basis of their causes of action for professional negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2012

NIETO FINE ART SAN FRANCISCO, LLC, A CALIFORNIA ET AL VS. JOIE DE VIVRE HOSPITALITY, INC., A CALIFORNIA ET AL

The allegations supporting the claim for breach of fiduciary duty are indistinguishable from those supporting the claim for professional negligence. Given the latter, there is no need for the former. Moreover, no California authority supports a breach of fiduciary claim under these circumstances.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2012

MICHAEL CARROLL VS KEVIN GERRY

Gerry argues that breach of these duties constitute professional negligence do not give rise to an action for breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2012

GARY CASTRO VS PRESTON MARX ET AL

Marx are joint tortfeasors with respect to plaintiff’s claims of professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Should the court determine that the settlement is in good faith pursuant to section 877.6, the effect of that determination as between the parties is a different issue that would be addressed in a subsequent motion or proceeding. (Paragon Real Estate Group of San Francisco, Inc. v. Hansen (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 177, 188.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MEGAN AMSLER ET AL VS FELL MARKING ABKIN MONTGOMERY ETC

The FAC alleges causes of action for (1) professional negligence, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) fraud by concealment. Defendant demurs to the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud arguing that plaintiffs’ allegations are for simple legal malpractice and do not rise to the level of breach of fiduciary duty or fraud. Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer and argue that these last two causes of action have been adequately alleged.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2011

IRENE MASTICK VS MICHAEL SAFRIS ET AL

Safris & Company, LLC (“Safris defendants”), alleging causes of action for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff claims that defendants provided her with improper financial advice following the death of her husband. On September 14, 2010, the Safris defendants removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2011

MEGAN AMSLER ET AL VS FELL MARKING ABKIN MONTGOMERY ETC

Motion: Plaintiffs move for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC) to state new causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud – concealment and to add allegations that defendant concealed its failures, represented plaintiffs in the actions that resulted from defendant’s failures, failed to alert plaintiffs to available affirmative defenses in that litigation to conceal its negligence, failed to refer plaintiffs to independent counsel, failed to obtain a conflict waiver, and deliberately attempted

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2011

HELGA SCHMIDT VS MATTHEW LONG

The face of the complaint, together with the judicially noticeable facts, shows that the complaint for professional negligence is barred by the statute of limitations. The demurrer will be sustained to the first cause of action on that ground. The second cause of action alleges breach of fiduciary duty that occurred when Long refused to help Schmidt defend against the TRO after May 27, 2010.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2011

MARIA MOREAU ET AL VS JAMES KNELL ET AL

., and Maria Moreau bring this action for 1) financial elder abuse, 2) breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, 3) fraud and aiding and abetting fraud, 4) conversion and aiding and abetting conversion, 5) breach of contract and interference with contract, 6) negligence, and 7) rescission against defendants James P. Knell, Sima Corporation and Sima Management Corporation. Plaintiffs allege: Jean Moreau, Sr. is in his nineties and Maria Moreau is in her seventies.

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2011

WARREN ELLIOTT ET AL VS FILIPPINI FINANCIAL GROUP INC ET AL

Where the allegations of professional negligence and the allegations for breach of fiduciary duty are based on the same alleged facts, the two-year statute of limitations governs both causes of action – a plaintiff “cannot prolong the limitations period by invoking a fiduciary theory of liability.” Id. The statute of limitation applicable to elder abuse claims is the two-year statute in CCP § 335.1. Benun v. Superior Court, 123 Cal.App.4th 113, 127 (2004). The cause of action for violation of Fin.

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2011

KRISTIN BAILEY VS SUSAN PINTAR

(iv) Overrule Defendant's general demurrer to the third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, on the ground that every attorney-client relationship implies a fiduciary relationship and corresponding fiduciary duties. (See Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971) 6 Cal.3d 176, 189.) First amended complaint to be filed on or before May 19, 2011. Parties waive notice.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2011

MICHAEL MCCORMICK VS. TROOP REAL ESTATE INC

of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2011

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WILLIAM S THOMPSON VS. FRANK RADOSLOVICH

As a result of the defendants' breach of fiduciary duty, plaintiffs allege that in September 2008 they "suffered a judgment of contempt, including fines and an order to pay Maxim Crane's attorneys fees, against them in the aforementioned action, for which Plaintiff THOMPSON bears significant personal liability. Plaintiffs also face prolonged litigation with Maxim Crane, thus incurring substantial attorneys fees, and potential liability for a final judgment against Plaintiffs in the underlying action."

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DOMINIQUE LACERTE VS ELIZABETH VOGT

At best, this is a garden variety action for professional negligence.” However, plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages does not relate to the third cause of action for legal malpractice, but to the fourth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Punitive damages are available for a breach of fiduciary duty so long as the requirements of Civil Code Section 3294(a) are met. See, Sequoia Vacuum Systems v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2010

KEVIN GREEN VS. PAUL DAVID JOHNSON

Specifically, the plaintiffs fail to state facts to support their " material facts" 1, 4 and 5, offered in support of the 1st cause of action for fraud; or " material facts" 1,3, 4 and 5 ,offered in support of their 2d cause of action for negligent misrepresentation; or their offered "material facts" 1, 2 and 3 for the 3rd cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty; or to support their offered "material facts" 1, 3,4, 5 and 6, submitted as to the 4th cause of action for violation of Corp.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2010

  « first    1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 31 32     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.