Breach of Fiduciary Duty in California

What Is 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.”

Tribeca Companies, LLC v. First American Title Ins. Co. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1114; see also Apollo Capital Fund LLC v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 226, 244.

“Whether a fiduciary duty exists is generally a question of law. Whether the defendant breached that duty towards the plaintiff is a question of fact.” Marzec v. Public Employees’ Retirement Sys. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 889, 915 (internal citation omitted).

The breach of fiduciary duty can be based upon either negligence or fraud, depending on the circumstances. Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 555, 563; see also Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. McSweeney (1991) 772 F.Supp. 1154, 1157. A breach of fiduciary duty claim is a species of tort distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence. Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086.

A fiduciary relationship can arise when confidence is reposed by persons in the integrity of others, and if the latter voluntarily accepts or assumes to accept the confidence, he or she may not act so as to take advantage of the other’s interest without that person’s knowledge or consent. Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534; Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101–1102.

“Before a person can be charged with a fiduciary obligation, he must either knowingly undertake to act on behalf and for the benefit of another, or must enter into a relationship which imposes that undertaking as a matter of law.” City of Hope Nat. Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 375, 386

Significantly, “the essence of a fiduciary... relationship is that the parties do not deal on equal terms because the person in whom trust and confidence is reposed and who accepts that trust and confidence is in a superior position to exert unique influence over the dependent party.” Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 938, 960.

Aiding and abetting

“The elements of a claim for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty are:

  1. a third party’s breach of fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff;
  2. defendant’s actual knowledge of that breach of fiduciary duties;
  3. substantial assistance or encouragement by defendant to the third party’s breach; and
  4. defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff.”

Nasrawi v. Buck Consultants, LLC (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 328, 343; see also, American Master Lease, LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1477-1478 (where the defendant has actual knowledge of the fiduciary duties one person owes to another and provides the fiduciary with substantial assistance in breaching those duties, the defendant can be held liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty even though the defendant did not owe a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff).

Remedies

“[A] breach of a fiduciary duty alone without malice, fraud or oppression does not permit an award of punitive damages. Punitive damages are appropriate if the defendant’s acts are reprehensible, fraudulent or in blatant violation of law or policy. The mere carelessness or ignorance of the defendant does not justify the imposition of punitive damages.” Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc., 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 715-716 (2009) (internal quotation and citations omitted).

Contexts

Breach of fiduciary duty has been applied in many contexts. Here are a few.

  • The relationship of attorney and client is a fiduciary relationship in which the attorney owes a fiduciary duty to the client. Rader v. Thrasher (1962) 57 Cal.2d 244, 250; Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 632; Great Lakes Construction, Inc. v. Burman (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1355.
  • There can be liability under a breach of fiduciary theory when a physician fails to disclose “personal interests unrelated to the patient’s health, whether research of economic, that may affect the physician's professional judgment.” Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990)
  • The real estate brokerage firm owes a fiduciary duty of utmost care, integrity, honesty, and loyalty in dealings with either the seller or the buyer, and the seller’s agent, who was executing forms on behalf of the brokerage firm, also owed the same duty to the buyer. Horiike v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1024.
  • However, “[a]n insurer is not a fiduciary, and owes no obligation to consider the interests of its insured above its own.” Village Northridge Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 913, 929.

Rulings for Professional Negligence – Breach of Fiduciary Duty in California

Cross-Defendants contend that the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action is duplicative of the professional negligence cause of action. As discussed in the demurrer, although the breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence causes of action are based on the same facts, those causes of action overlap and the facts support both claims to some extent. Contrary to Cross-Defendants' contention, the cross-complaint does allege breach of the duty of loyalty.

  • Name

    US CONSTRUCTION LAW APC VS KINDER

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00000227-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2016

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.

  • Name

    EMRANI VS GOODMAN MD

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00013325-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

In support of his 3rd Cause of Action for Professional Negligence and his 4th Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, plaintiff incorporates his allegations in paragraphs 5 and 17 that defendant’s answer for plaintiff on his 2003 insurance application, that plaintiff had not been treated for an eye disorder, was accurate and reasonable. Plaintiff makes no other specific factual allegations that could constitute professional negligence or a breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Name

    FRITSCH VS. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00910373-CU-IC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2017

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    20CHCV00264

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

The case concerns allegations of professional negligence, as well as claims for sexual misconduct. The complaint alleges the following causes of action: 1) Sexual Harassment in Defined Relationship; 2) Sexual Battery; 3) Ralph Act - Gender Violence; 4) Professional Negligence; 5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and 6) Fraud/Concealment.

  • Name

    LORI HOEFT VS RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC

  • Case No.

    BC638394

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2017

On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) negligence, (4) fraud, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, (6) professional negligence, (7) civil conspiracy to defraud, (8) professional negligence, (9) professional negligence, (10) negligence, and (11) negligence. Defendants Julias Stewart and Stewart-Reed Law Group, Inc. demur to the ninth cause of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.

  • Name

    XUE LENG GARD VS ANGELA WALLACE ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC706320

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2018

Fifth COA (Breach of Fiduciary Duty): The Cross-Complaint adequately alleges facts to support a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. (Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 26-29.) Thus, the demurrer to the fifth cause of action is overruled. Sixth COA (Concealment): The Cross-Complaint fails to adequately allege the specific “concealed facts.” (See Cross-Complaint, ¶ 33.)

  • Name

    THERRIEN VS. CHRSITIE

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00885199-CU-CO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Apr 10, 2018

The breach of fiduciary duty claim is not duplicative of the legal malpractice claim. A breach of fiduciary duty is a species of tort distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence. (Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086) Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts for both the medical malpractice claim based on failure to file suit with the statute of limitations and breach of fiduciary duty in concealing the loss of the claim and dismissal of the case.

  • Name

    MCCLANAHAN VS FELDMAN

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00018245-CU-MC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2017

The complaint alleges two causes of action against Goodman – Medical Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Goodman demurrers to the cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. As 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.

  • Name

    EMRANI VS GOODMAN MD

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00013325-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

While the Complaint alleges that Defendant churned the bill [1] , this would constitute a breach of fiduciary duty, but not negligence. [A] breach of fiduciary duty is a species of tort distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence. (Citation omitted.) ( Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 108687.)

  • Name

    DENISE MOONEY V. TAUFIKI D. JOSHUA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV40912

  • Hearing

    May 19, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) fraud; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) negligence; (4) fraud; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) professional negligence; (7) civil conspiracy to commit fraud; (8) professional negligence; (9) professional negligence; (10) negligence; and (11) negligence.

  • Name

    XUE LENG GARD VS ANGELA WALLACE ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC706320

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2019

Second Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: 1) the existence of a fiduciary duty; 2) a breach of the fiduciary duty; and 3) resulting damage. ( City of Atascadero v. Merill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1999) 68 C .A.4 th 445, 483). Pellegrini v. Weiss (2008) 165 Cal.App.4 th 515, 524. The FAC pleads breach of fiduciary duty at paragraphs 18-24. It does not specifically identify any alleged breach.

  • Name

    AKRAM AKBARNEJAD VS MAJID SAFAIE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV20357

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant answered the complaint with a general denial and cross-complained against plaintiff for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional negligence, claiming that plaintiff billed excessively and for unnecessary work. On April 1, 2014, the Court sustained plaintiff’s demurrer to the breach of contract and professional negligence claims without leave to amend, leaving the breach of fiduciary duty claim as the only remaining cross-claim.

  • Name

    JACQUELINE MISHO VS JAMES MARINO

  • Case No.

    1416944

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2014

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

  • Name

    MICHAEL CARROLL VS KEVIN GERRY

  • Case No.

    1383494

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2012

On May 1, 2014, Richardson filed his original complaint against defendants asserting two causes of action: (1) professional negligence; and, (2) breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants demurred to Richardson’s original complaint. On July 21, 2014, the court sustained the demurrer, with leave to amend as to the second cause of action, for breach of fiduciary duty, and overruled the demurrer as to the first cause of action, for professional negligence.

  • Name

    SCOT RICHARDSON VS RICHARD TAYLOR ET AL

  • Case No.

    1466901

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2014

Kailah Pink, plaintiff Ghods’s ex-fiance and former business partner, cross-complained, alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud, as well as false imprisonment against Ghods. Cross-defendants Coldwell, Thind and Maldonado demur to Pink’s cross-complaint.

  • Name

    RYAN GHODS VS COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL NRT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19SMCV01622

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Jennings to the First Amended Complaint is overruled as to the 1st Cause of Action (Professional Negligence), the 2nd Cause of Action (Breach of Oral Contract), the 4th Cause of Action (Fraudulent Concealment) and the 5th Cause of Action (Declaratory Relief); and is sustained with leave to amend as to the 3rd Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty).

  • Name

    RELIABLE PROPERTIES, INC. VS JENNINGS, STEINE & CO., ET AL

  • Case No.

    SC125374

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) negligence, (4) fraud, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, (6) professional negligence, (7) civil conspiracy to defraud, (8) professional negligence, (9) professional negligence, (10) negligence, and (11) negligence. Defendant Angela Wallace moves to quash service of summons. Defendant argues the summons does not comply with Code Civ.

  • Name

    XUE LENG GARD VS ANGELA WALLACE ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC706320

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2018

See CACI 600-6011 (Professional Malpractice) and 4106 (Breach of Fiduciary Duty). [A] breach of fiduciary duty is a species of tort distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence. Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086. Plaintiff is entitled to plead alternative theories of recovery. See Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604; see Picton v. Anderson Union High School District (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 732-733; 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc.

  • Name

    MARK SANDERS VS ALEXANDER V. HETTENA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23SMCV00143

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Alternatively, Defendant requests summary adjudication in its favor and against Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs’ 1st cause of action for Breach of Oral and Implied Contract, 2nd cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and 3rd cause of action for Professional Negligence. RULING: The request for summary judgment is denied. Summary adjudication is denied as to the 2nd cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

  • Name

    AMANDA TULLER ET AL VS GOLDEN BEAR CAPITAL INC

  • Case No.

    BC609725

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2021

Plaintiff shall also allege facts in support of each element of breach of fiduciary duty. The Court will not follow Afont at this time, but may do so when the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is properly asserted if, as such, it appears completely duplicative of the cause of action for professional negligence. Plaintiff shall further allege misrepresentation with particularity (when, how, by what means, where, etc), especially as against a corporate defendant. = (501/REQ)

  • Name

    MOBILEONE LLC VS. FIRST WESTERN PROPERTIES, INC. ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC19581122

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

The claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty was added to the Second Amended Complaint without permission. Now, the Motion for Leave has corrected that issue.

  • Name

    VICK KASSARDJIAN ET. AL. VS. BURTON C. JACOBSON, ESQ. ET. AL

  • Case No.

    SC123401

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2016

Second Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: 1) the existence of a fiduciary duty; 2) a breach of the fiduciary duty; and 3) resulting damage. ( City of Atascadero v. Merill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1999) 68 C.A.4 th 445, 483). Pellegrini v. Weiss (2008) 165 Cal.App.4 th 515, 524. The SAC pleads breach of fiduciary duty at paragraphs 15-22.

  • Name

    AKRAM AKBARNEJAD VS MAJID SAFAIE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV20357

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Second Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Defendants contend that the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty fails because the alleged wrongdoing is mere negligence, not something more egregious or different which would amount to breach of a fiduciary duty.

  • Name

    WHOLISTIC INVESTMENTS, LLC V. ROGOWAY

  • Case No.

    SCV-264901

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

  • Judge

    Ksenia Tsenin for the Hon. Patrick M. Broderick

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

The remaining causes of action in the Fourth Amended Complaint are: 1) Corporate Negligence (Elam); 2) Negligence Per Se; 3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 4) Professional Negligence; and 5) Loss of Consortium. The Chaudhry Defendants request is different, and their motion leaves some questions unanswered as to what exactly is proposed.

  • Name

    GILL V. FRESNO COMMUNITY REGIONAL CENTER

  • Case No.

    14CECG01472

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2017

  • Judge

    Jeff Hamilton

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

The demurrer is overruled as to plaintiff’s first cause of action for professional negligence. The amended complaint, read as a whole, adequately alleges facts to support a cause of action for professional negligence. Further, the court finds that the amended complaint is not uncertain as to this cause of action. The demurrer is sustained as to plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Name

    CAUCHI, VINCENT V. VERNON, RAQUELLE

  • Case No.

    S-CV-0045558

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2022

  • County

    Placer County, CA

The demurrer to the equitable indemnity, contribution, breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence causes of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Cross-Complainants shall file and serve their First Amended Cross-Complaint no later than March 8, 2019.

  • Name

    EVANS VS TAHVILDARI

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00026522-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

Therefore, Defendant Engstrom’s demurrer to the first cause of action for professional negligence in the SAC is SUSTAINED. 2. Third Cause of Action – Breach of Fiduciary Duty “The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) the existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) the breach of that duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by that breach.” (Mosier v. Southern California Physicians Insurance Exchange (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1044.)

  • Name

    ALLEN LETGOLTS ET AL VS SCOTT MARKS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC537637

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

More specifically, Defendants contend Plaintiffs Second Cause of Action for breach of fiduciary duty is merely a repeat of Plaintiffs professional negligence claim. Defendants further contend that Plaintiffs allegations of ethical violations are not supported by the facts. The Court agrees. As discussed above with the professional negligence claim, Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts showing that Defendants alleged breach of fiduciary duty caused Plaintiffs alleged damages.

  • Name

    BENJAMIN CHUI VS SCOTT WARMUTH, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22PSCV01588

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) Professional Negligence; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Defendants now demur to the complaint. First Cause of Action: Professional Negligence: SUSTAINED, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. “The failure to provide competent representation in a civil or criminal case may be the basis for civil liability under a theory of professional negligence.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS JOHN V GAULE

  • Case No.

    BC717927

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2019

A breach of fiduciary duty claim is a species of tort distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence. (Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086.)

  • Name

    MANUEL HUITRON VS EDWARD A. TORRES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18BBCV00117

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Marie Darocha, the decedent's mother, has not alleged standing; she should be dismissed with leave to amend only if she can qualify under § 377.60. 5th c/a (breach of fiduciary duty): SUSTAIN with leave to amend. Plaintiffs do not clearly allege a breach of fiduciary duty by a physician. 7th c/a (professional negligence): SUSTAIN with leave to amend on the ground of uncertainty as it is not clear whether this action is a survival action or one for wrongful death.

  • Name

    JULIA MARIE FORD VS. KAISER PERMANENTE

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00461840-CU-CO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Apr 21, 2015

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.

  • Name

    AMANDA TULLER ET AL VS GOLDEN BEAR CAPITAL INC

  • Case No.

    BC609725

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

Moreover, no California court has explicitly held that a breach of fiduciary duty claim cannot merely duplicate a claim for professional negligence. (See Buehler v. Sbardellati (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1527, 1544, fn. 9 [noting there is authority for the view the breach of fiduciary duty theory is separate from the professional negligence theory but leav[ing] any resolution of this separate cause of action question to another case].)

  • Name

    NANCY J. MARROQUIN VS BRENTON HORNER

  • Case No.

    23STCV19956

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The July 26, 2023 Request for Dismissal also dismisses the following causes of action in his capacity as Assignor of Gita Nownejad: (1) First Cause of Action for Professional Negligence, Second Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Seventh Cause of Action for Breach of Contract, and Seventeenth Cause of Action for Retaliation. Finally, the July 26, 2023 Request for Dismissal dismisses Cyrus Nownejad’s causes of action for Discrimination Harassment and Retaliation.

  • Name

    CYRUS NOWNEJAD VS KENNETH RALIDIS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CV-00746

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2023

  • County

    Merced County, CA

TENTATIVE RULINGS 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 first amended cross-complaint ("FACC") 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) are overruled.

  • Name

    SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS INC VS MIAO

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00032934-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

As in other situations, “breach of fiduciary duty is a species of tort distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence.” Id., 1086. The duty includes a duty to inform a client of all information necessary to make an informed decision. Betts v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 688, 716. As plead, this cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is based on conduct different from malpractice and is sufficient to support a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Name

    ABEL VS MCCUTCHAN, JR

  • Case No.

    SCV-263456

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2019

Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts two causes of action against Peterson for (1) professional negligence; and (2) breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Name

    O'LEARY VS QUINTRALL [IMAGED

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00047223-CU-PN-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2019

Cross-defendant’s unopposed Demurrer to the 1st (breach of fiduciary duty), 2nd (professional negligence), and 3rd (malicious prosecution) causes of action is sustained without leave to amend. Preliminarily, the court notes the cross-plaintiffs have not filed opposition. The court construes the lack of opposition as a concession that the demurrer has merit.

  • Name

    NEWMEYER & DILLION VS. VANEFSKY

  • Case No.

    30-2013-00651441-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2017

The demurrer is overruled as to the fourth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fifth cause of action for professional negligence. The first amended cross-complaint shall be filed and served by September 17, 2021.

  • Name

    NEPTUNE INVESTMENTS V. COLEMAN, ALLISON

  • Case No.

    S-CV-0046452

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2021

  • County

    Placer County, CA

Demurrer to 4th Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Ledwitz’s citation to Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371 does not support the proposition that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is superfluous when brought in conjunction with a professional negligence claim. Careau deals with whether or not a breach of implied covenant claim is superfluous when it is based on the same facts as a claim for breach of contract.

  • Name

    JOHN IRELAND VS SAMUEL LEDWITZ ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC636001

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2017

In addition, while the facts underlying Ansari’s professional negligence cause of action and breach of fiduciary duty cause of action are the same, the elements to plead each are different, as discussed above, and a breach of fiduciary duty is a species of tort different from professional negligence.

  • Name

    YANG LAW, P.C. VS ROYA ANSARI

  • Case No.

    20STCV10467

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS INC VS MIAO

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00032934-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

They also request severance/bifurcation of “breach of fiduciary duty” but only as it relates to plaintiffs’ allegations that the Hospital’s financial relationship with Dr. Chaudhry caused it to “look the other way” with respect to his conduct [as noted in Footnote 1, supra] and thereby breach its Elam duty. Thus, to the extent the breach of fiduciary duty claim relates to the broad-ranging allegations regarding conflicting financial interests and Dr.

  • Name

    XXXXX

  • Case No.

    13CECG03906

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2017

  • Judge

    Jeff Hamilton

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

The punitive damages claims are not supported by the Breach of Fiduciary Duty claims as those allegations are vague. 20 days leave to amend the punitive damages is granted. The remainder of the arguments deal with potential conflicts in the evidence which are factual determinations, which in part rely on credibility determinations, which are improper at the demurrer stage. Please note that leave to amend only the allegations of the Breach of Fiduciary Duty claim and claim for punitive damages.

  • Name

    SHAMEL SANANI, ET AL. VS MOHAMMED AZHAR ASADI, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19VECV00788

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Complaint does not sufficiently allege the date(s) on which Plaintiff discovered any alleged professional negligence or breach of fiduciary duty by Defendants. Accordingly, neither Defendants nor the court are able to determine whether Plaintiff's claims are time-barred and the complaint fails for uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).) Plaintiff may have until June 21, 2019 to file a First Amended Complaint.

  • Name

    ST JON VS MARTORELL

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00064341-CU-PN-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION The demurrer to the third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. This claim appears to be duplicative of the claim for breach of contract and the claim for professional negligence. To prove a breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff must show the existence of a fiduciary relationship, its breach, and damage proximately caused by that breach. (Knox v. Dean (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 417, 432-433.)

  • Name

    BUEHRLE VS BIGGS

  • Case No.

    RG19045316

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2021

In the professional negligence cause of action, Parker pleads that the alleged breaches, among other things, caused Parker to enter into an agreement for temporary spousal support far below her needs. That sufficiently alleges damage. “[A] breach of fiduciary duty is a species of tort distinct from a cause of action for professional negligence.” Stanley v. Richmond, 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086 (1995).

  • Name

    LAUREEN MARIE PARKER VS DENNIS GENE MERENBACH ET AL

  • Case No.

    17CV03340

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2018

(Del Terra), asserting causes of action for breach of contract, professional negligence, express indemnity, and breach of fiduciary duty. The District alleged that it hired Del Terra to provide program management services.

  • Name

    TELENET VOIP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY

  • Case No.

    19STCV33443

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19CHCV00654

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Pink, plaintiff Ghodss ex-fiance and former business partner, cross-complained, with similar allegations of professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud against Coldwell and its agents. On September 22, 2021 the court sustained cross-defendants demurrer to the first amended cross-complaint with leave to amend. Cross-defendants Coldwell Banker, Thind and Maldonado now demur to the second amended cross-complaint (SACC).

  • Name

    RYAN GHODS VS COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL NRT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19SMCV01622

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

First and Third Causes of Action: Professional Negligence & Breach of Fiduciary Duty Defendants assert that “[w]ith respect to Defendant Baron, the SAC remains bereft of allegations that he was an attorney or legal representative of Plaintiff and does not sufficiently allege that Baron’s involvement resulted in damages to Plaintiff,” thus “the punitive damages claims for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty must be stricken, at least with respect to Baron.” (Motion, pp. 1:21-23, 2:12-13.)

  • Name

    ANDREA GALANTE VS JOSHUA M FINE ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC712406

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2019

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.

  • Name

    MEIKLE VS GREEN

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00923474-CU-PN-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2019

On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint which alleges causes of action for: (1) fraudulent concealment; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) violation of RICO; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) constructive fraud; (6) professional negligence; (7) accounting; (8) money had and received; and (9) unjust enrichment.

  • Name

    346 VERMONT ASSOCIATES LLC VS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

  • Case No.

    BC639306

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2019

Defendants' Demurrer to the 1st Cause of Action (Professional Negligence) and the 2nd Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) is overruled. Defendants' Demurrer to the 3rd Cause of Action (Conversion) is sustained with leave to amend. Defendants' Motion to Strike is granted with leave to amend. The 1st Cause of Action states a direct claim against both Defendants. The 2nd Cause of Action alleges that Defendant had exclusive control over Plaintiff's business, tax preparation and bank account.

  • Name

    JOHN HILLCOAT, ET AL VS THOMAS ST. JOHN, LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    SC128709

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2018

The claim for Professional Negligence sets forth sufficient allegations of damage. See Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the First Amended Cross-Complaint. The claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty is sufficiently alleged in Paragraphs 28-30 of the First Amended Cross-Complaint. The claim for Breach of Contract is properly alleged and includes a claim for damage in Paragraph 39 of the First Amended Cross-Complaint. The claim for Fraud is sufficiently alleged. See Paragraphs 13-16 of the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

  • Name

    LEONARD H. LYONS VS. WORLD DOG ALLIANCE LTD

  • Case No.

    SC126704

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2018

A breach of fiduciary duty is a tort claim entirely distinct from a malpractice claim based on professional negligence. (Barbara A. v. John G. (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 369, 382-383, 193 Cal.Rptr. 422; cf. Budd v.

  • Name

    LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN PAVONE PC VS WILLIS

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00007364-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2018

Professional Negligence 2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 3. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing RULING : The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. On 2/17/22, Plaintiff North American Machinery Movers, Inc. filed this action against Defendants Sergio Maldonado and On the Road Insurance Services for: (1) Professional Negligence, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (3) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

  • Name

    NORTH AMERICAN MACHINERY MOVERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SERGIO MALDONADO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00110

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On 10/20/16, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint which asserts causes of action for (1)-(2) legal malpractice, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) professional malpractice, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, and (6) financial elder abuse. The 1st through 3rd COAs are asserted against Attorney Defendants; the 4th and 5th COAs are asserted against Accountant Defendants; and the 6th COA is asserted by Graiwer against S&G.

  • Name

    MANUEL F GRAIWER ET AL VS ELLIS R STERN ESQ ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC634813

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

STATUTE OF LIMITATION: The defendants argue that the Second Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fourth Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation and the Sixth Cause of Action for Professional Negligence are each barred by the statute of limitations of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 339(1).

  • Name

    ANDREWS VS. MARCUM LLP

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00830847-CU-FR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2018

When a physician fails to disclose personal interests unrelated to the patient’s health, a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty may arise. (See, Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 129.) Here, the Court finds that the FAC fails to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. The FAC fails to allege that Cachur or any other defendant failed to disclose information material to Plaintiff’s decision prior to performing the surgery.

  • Name

    PHAMIE WHITE VS GRAND MEDICAL ASSOCIATES

  • Case No.

    BC670548

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2018

On October 4, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Financial Elder Abuse, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Professional Negligence, and Receipt and Possession of Stolen Property (David Neuman only named defendant in this cause of action). David Neuman answered on December 12, 2023. RULING Demurrer : Sustained with Leave to Amend.

  • Name

    LAYNE KRAMER, ET AL. VS ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV24250

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendants therefore argue that Plaintiff is disguising her claims of fraud within the second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. As Defendants’ claim does not test the legal sufficiency of the allegations for Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, it is not properly addressed by demurrer.

  • Name

    MARIA LOURDES DE LA LAMA VS MICHAEL DOUNEL, D.M.D., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV06218

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Accordingly, demurrer to the 1st cause of action is sustained. 2nd Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty The Court already overruled the demurrer to the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The breach of fiduciary duty claim in the FAXC is identical to the original cross-complaint except that the allegations regarding punitive damages were removed. Cf. ROA # 73 [XC] at ¶¶ 64-69, ROA # 157 [FAXC] at ¶¶ 45-49.

  • Name

    LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN PAVONE PC VS GLASSMAN

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00039197-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2017

Professional Negligence, 2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and 3. Breach of Contract. A previous demurrer (12/14/18) was sustained with leave to amend. Defendant demurs and moves to strike as to the FAC. First Cause of Action for Professional Negligence Previously, the court ruled plaintiff stated a claim for professional negligence, but her claim appeared to be barred by the statute of limitations. 12/14/18 Minute Order, pg. 3. The court granted leave to amend. Id.

  • Name

    NATALIE FLETES VS GEORGE M. HALIMI

  • Case No.

    SC129760

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

As for the seventh cause of action for professional negligence: to the extent this is an action for wrongful death, Daniel Darocha, Jr., the decedent's brother, has no standing and must be dismissed without leave to amend. Marie Darocha, the decedent's mother, has not alleged standing; she should be dismissed with leave to amend only if she can qualify under § 377.60. 5th c/a (breach of fiduciary duty): Hospitals do not have a fiduciary duty to patients.

  • Name

    JULIA MARIE FORD VS. KAISER PERMANENTE

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00461840-CU-CO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2015

Breach of Fiduciary Duty (4th COA) "The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are the existence of a fiduciary Event ID: 2891069 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 28 Page: 1 CASE TITLE: WEISBORD VS POSNER & ROSEN CASE NUMBER: 37-2020-00012383-CU-PN-CTL [IMAGED] relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, and damages." Knutson v. Foster (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1075, 1093-1094.

  • Name

    WEISBORD VS POSNER & ROSEN

  • Case No.

    37-2020-00012383-CU-PN-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

Duplicative Claims Glendale Adventist demurrers to the second and third causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and lack of informed consent, respectively, on the ground that they are duplicative of the Plaintiffs professional negligence claim. However, the Court should not find this persuasive. Plaintiff is entitled to plead breaches of different duties: Superfluity does not vitiate. (Civ. Proc. Code § 3537.)

  • Name

    RAFIK BAGHDASARIAN VS ON WANG, MD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV10285

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2022

breach of fiduciary duty; (16) conversion; (17) unjust enrichment; (18) professional negligence; (19) breach of duty to minority shareholders derivatively on behalf of Trustifi Canada; (20) professional negligence; (21) breach of fiduciary duty; (22) breach of fiduciary duty; (23) breach of duty to minority shareholders.

  • Name

    MARY ELLEN MORO ET AL VS LENNY ESMOND ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC693660

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2019

breach of fiduciary duty; (16) conversion; (17) unjust enrichment; (18) professional negligence; (19) breach of duty to minority shareholders derivatively on behalf of Trustifi Canada; (20) professional negligence; (21) breach of fiduciary duty; (22) breach of fiduciary duty; (23) breach of duty to minority shareholders.

  • Name

    MARY ELLEN MORO ET AL VS LENNY ESMOND ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC693660

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2019

The Demurrer of Nathan Mubasher to the First Amended Complaint is overruled as to the 2nd Cause of Action (Professional Negligence) and sustained with leave to amend as to the 1st Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), the 3rd Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) and the 4th Cause of Action (Fraudulent Concealment). The Motion to Strike is granted as to paragraphs 3, 5 and 42, requesting attorney's fees, interest and punitive damages.

  • Name

    AMANDA CAST VS NATHAN MUBASHER

  • Case No.

    SC126289

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2017

) (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.]

  • Name

    MEGAN AMSLER ET AL VS FELL MARKING ABKIN MONTGOMERY ETC

  • Case No.

    1372511

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2012

October 1, 2018 Dept. 56 This is an action arising from the alleged professional negligence of Defendants Victor Jacobovitz, Shirley Kenninger, Law Office of Victor Jacobovitz APC, and Kenninger & Associates in representing Plaintiffs in the case styled Logoai v. Alameda Court LLC, BC572165 (“Underlying Action”). On July 25, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) professional negligence, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) fraud.

  • Name

    ALAMEDA COURT LLC ET AL VS DAVID ROBINSON ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC655605

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2018

September 29, 2018 Dept. 56 This is an action arising from the alleged professional negligence of Defendants Victor Jacobovitz, Shirley Kenninger, Law Office of Victor Jacobovitz APC, and Kenninger & Associates in representing Plaintiffs in the case styled Logoai v. Alameda Court LLC, BC572165 (“Underlying Action”). On July 25, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) professional negligence, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) fraud.

  • Name

    ALAMEDA COURT LLC ET AL VS DAVID ROBINSON ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC655605

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2018

Thus, the demurrer is OVERRULED. 3rd cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty – SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendants argue that under California law, an insurance broker cannot be sued for breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs argue that it is a viable cause of action. “The duty of a broker, by and large, is to use reasonable care, diligence, and judgment in procuring the insurance requested by its client.” Kotlar v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 1116, 1123.

  • Name

    JASON M. YAMADA, ET AL. VS ABDOLLAH SHARIFF, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18TRCV00095

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    JOSEPH CHANG MD ET AL VS NORMAN DAVIS

  • Case No.

    1383597

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2012

Defendant’s demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty is OVERRULED. Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot assert a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant because California law does not recognize a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against an insurance broker. Defendant cites to the court of appeal opinion in Hydro-Mill Co., Inc. v. Hayward, Tilton and Rolapp Inc. Assoc., Inc., 115 Cal. App. 4th 1145 (2004) in support of its contention.

  • Name

    OCRV PAINT AND SERVICE, LLC VS. ARROWHEAD GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00981058-CU-FR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2018

Based on the foregoing, on 2/17/22, Plaintiff filed this action for: (1) Professional Negligence, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (3) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

  • Name

    NORTH AMERICAN MACHINERY MOVERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SERGIO MALDONADO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00110

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence against Kim, and breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith against Helou. Defendant Kim moves for summary judgment of Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s motion consists of a memorandum of law, with a number of documents attached as exhibits. There are no declarations, depositions or other evidence, and there is no separate statement of undisputed facts.

  • Name

    BEN AND AMY LLC VS CHRISTOPHER YONG KIM ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC610018

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2017

Overrule as to 1st c/a (professional negligence), 2nd c/a (breach of fiduciary duty), 3rd c/a (B & P 6148), 4th c/a (concealment), and 8th c/a (unfair business practices). Sustain w/o leave as to 5th c/a (restitution, 6th c/a/ (declaratory relief), and 7th c/a/ (unjust enrichment). There are plenty of allegations sufficient to support 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 8th causes of action. This is a demurrer, and allegations control. What plaintiff can prove at trial is something else entirely.

  • Name

    RAY B BOWEN VS. VICTOR LIN

  • Case No.

    56-2020-00547900-CU-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2021

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    CGC11514920

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2012

The Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s First Amended Cross-Complaint adequately alleges four causes of action for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and breach of contract. Further, the Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s amendment of the cross-complaint to allege “delayed discovery” was entirely appropriate and does not constitute a “sham pleading” nor “bad faith” filing.

  • Name

    RODRIGUEZ, ROBERT D. VS. CASTILLO, CRISTOBAL M.

  • Case No.

    2024052

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2018

Demurrer is OVERRULED as to the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, cause of action for professional negligence and cause of action for indemnity, each element of these causes of action is sufficiently alleged. Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to (1) constructive fraud cause of action. Plaintiff fails to allege facts as to non-disclosure to Plaintiff and intent to deceive Plaintiff; (2) breach of contract cause of action.

  • Name

    ANTREA INVESTMENTS AND TRADING LLC, VS. VANGUARD PROPERTIES INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC16556120

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2017

(e)] for breach of fiduciary duty is OVERRULED. B. Defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action in plaintiff Pho’s FAC [professional negligence] is OVERRULED.

  • Name

    BIC D. PHO V. ERIC J. SIDEBOTHAM, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17CV319765

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

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.

  • Name

    MEGAN AMSLER ET AL VS FELL MARKING ABKIN MONTGOMERY ETC

  • Case No.

    1372511

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2011

On 3/4/20, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint for: (1) professional negligence (legal malpractice); (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) fraud and deceit; (4) constructive fraud; (5) breach of contract/express indemnity; (6) declaratory relief re implied indemnity and contribution; and (7) professional negligence.

  • Name

    AWARE SELF STORAGE INC VS SALISBURY GROUP INC

  • Case No.

    RIC1901422

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

Further, moving party failed to properly address the fraud, concealment and breach of fiduciary duty claims. The moving parties' initial burden has not been met, and the motion must be denied.

  • Name

    WATER COURT VS. ADAMS WINE GROUP

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00480305-CU-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2017

  • Judge

    Vincent O'Neill

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

None of the cases cited by defendant for this proposition are pleading cases, and in fact all that each case does is recite the elements of a professional negligence or breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, and the requirement that each include causation. The Court believes that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged causation.

  • Name

    THOMAS COLBERT VS JOSEPH ALLEN

  • Case No.

    1337529

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2009

With respect to Plaintiffs’ claims for negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty, the Court previously found that such claims were time barred because “(1) there is a two-year statute of limitations for such claims (Code Civ. Proc. § 339(1); Hydro-Mill Co., Inc. v. Hayward, Tilton & Rolapp Ins. Associates, Inc.

  • Name

    MEGAN MEADOWCROFT, ET AL. VS ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.) INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV18304

  • Hearing

    Apr 09, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

YIHE asserted causes of action for (1) indemnity, (2) fraud and deceit, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) breach of fiduciary duty (fraud), (5) breach of fiduciary duty (negligence), (6) professional negligence, (7) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (8) willful failure to comply with Civil Code § 2079.

  • Name

    YIHE CALIFORNIA PTY LTD VS LONG DRAGON REALTY GROUP INC ET A

  • Case No.

    BC614995

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2016

Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty; 2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Use Reasonable Care; 3. Breach of Trustees Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty; 4. Breach of Trustees Fiduciary Duty to Use Reasonable Care; 5. Constructive Fraud; 6. Fraud by Concealment; 7. Breach of Contract; 8. Breach of Implied Duty to Perform with Reasonable Care; 9.

  • Name

    KIMBERLY CHANDLER VS BOULEVARD MANAGEMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV04310

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DISCUSSION Professional Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Lack of Informed Consent Defendant argues Plaintiff’s causes of action for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and lack of informed consent are all subject to and barred by the statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5.

  • Name

    SALVADOR MONTANO VS BHARAT PATEL

  • Case No.

    19STCV00937

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

DISCUSSION Professional Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Lack of Informed Consent Defendant argues Plaintiff’s causes of action for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and lack of informed consent are all subject to and barred by the statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5.

  • Name

    SALVADOR MONTANO VS BHARAT PATEL

  • Case No.

    19STCV00937

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

Accordingly, PBSs demurrer to the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is SUSTAINED. In sustaining PBSs prior demurrer to the cause of action for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, the Court, citing American Master Lease LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd.

  • Name

    MICHAEL LEVINE, ET AL. VS MONTALBA ARCHITECTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19SMCV01966

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Sustained, without leave to amend as to the cause of action for practicing law without a law license and sustained with fifteen eave to amend s to the causes of action for breach of contract, professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Mr. Meis is give leave to allege, if he can do so in good faith, a cognizable cause of action against the cross-defendants.

  • Name

    100 BUSH CORPORATION VS. FRED G. MEIS ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC11512813

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2012

Thus, the Court must first consider whether CCP § 340.6(a) applies with equal force to the breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract causes of action.

  • Case No.

    MSC21-02603

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2022

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

This attorney-client relationship is essentially a prerequisite for a breach of fiduciary duty claim and professional negligence claim in the context of this action. Plaintiff has not alleged such facts. Thus, the Court will sustain the demurrer to the 18th cause of action with 20 days leave to amend as against Hiibner. As breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence are distinct claims, Plaintiff should allege these causes of action as two separate causes of action.

  • Name

    JAMIE NICOLE BACA VS MUSTAPHA BAHA, ET AL

  • Case No.

    EC069048

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2019

However, it is apparent to the Court that the causes of action for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty are not based upon any claim that defendants were negligent in these representations.

  • Name

    JOI STEPHENS ET AL VS REICKER, PFAU, PYLE & MCROY, LLP ET AL

  • Case No.

    18CV02165

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

Demurrer by Tseng The 5th and 6th causes of action against Tseng for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty fail to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs do not allege any damage suffered as a result of Tseng?s alleged professional negligence or breach of fiduciary duty, and have had prior opportunities to cure the defect. These are the only causes of action alleged against Jennifer Tseng and Tseng & Associates.

  • Name

    LAZY ACRES MARKET INC VS WESTERN HERITAGE INSURANCE CO

  • Case No.

    1160507

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2005

However, unlike the cause of action for professional negligence, Pinnacle Defendants had no burden to present expert testimony regarding causation for a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. ( See CACI 4100.)

  • Name

    TEODULO CASTELLANOS, ET AL. VS PINNACLE ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV25657

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope