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

76-100 of 783 results

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

PATRICIA A. MCALLISTER VS SHADI MORISSET, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint on January 29, 2019, alleging causes of action for (1) Constructive Fraud - Concealment by Fiduciary; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Professional Negligence; (4) Negligent Misrepresentation (5) Emotional Distress Resulting from Financial Injury; (6) Reliance; and (7) Negligence. Defendant filed its demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint on March 8, 2019. Instead of filing an opposition, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on March 28, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PROTOCOL AGENCY INC VS. SUNKEN

There is nothing reasonably ambiguous or unclear or uncertain about the allegations of the FAC or the theories of liability against defendants (professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty). The allegations of the FAC place defendants on sufficient notice of the factual and legal bases of liability asserted against them.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSEPH THOMPSON VS AL JONES, ET AL.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action: Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Promissory Estoppel, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud, Fraudulent Concealment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Professional Negligence, and Conversion Defendants Jones and Richardson now demur to the 2–6 causes of action. An opposition was also filed and considered. As of November 15, 2019, no reply has been filed; it was due November 12, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

Accordingly, the Court DENIES summary adjudication as to the issue of breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANTHONY SAM VS XXXXXXXXXX ET AL

Accordingly, the Court DENIES summary adjudication as to the issue of breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

Accordingly, the Court DENIES summary adjudication as to the issue of breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KHOSROW GHARIB VS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) professional negligence, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) breach of contract. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. Plaintiff and Bahar Gharib (“Bahar”) were parties in a marital dissolution action in Los Angeles Superior Court. On October 12, 2017, Bahar filed a request for order (“RFO”) to determine past due child support. Plaintiff filed a responsive declaration denying, in general terms, the allegations asserted by Bahar in her RFO.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

OMG MARKETING VENTURES, INC. VS. NEWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, IN

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action: Breach of Contract; Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Negligence; Professional Negligence; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Negligent Misrepresentation; Constructive Fraud; Fraud, and Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2019

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHRISTINA GARCIA VS JESSE E. FRENCH, ESQ.,, ET AL.

Exchange (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1044 [finding that breach of fiduciary duty is “a concept which is separate and distinct from traditional professional negligence but which still comprises legal malpractice”].) Nevertheless, the Court finds that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty as to Dan. The allegations made in the FAC as to Dan are as follows: (1) Dan represented to Garcia that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

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

Plaintiff is admonished to make future pleadings more organized, as failing to do so wastes the Court and the parties’ time unnecessarily. --- Breach of Fiduciary Duty – The elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary duty, (2) breach, and (3) damages proximately caused by the breach. Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 1070, 1086.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

HILL VS. LAW OFFICES OF BEATRICE L SNIDER APC

On June 17, 2016, while the summary judgment motion was pending, the court sustained the demurrer as to the entire SAC, and allowed Carla 20 days to amend to try to assert malpractice and/or breach of fiduciary duty. (Id.) Carla filed her TAC on July 7, 2016, attempting to allege: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; ( 4) concealment; (5) conspiracy; (6) professional negligence; and (7) negligent misrepresentation. (Ex.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HILL VS. LAW OFFICES OF BEATRICE L SNIDER APC

On June 17, 2016, while the summary judgment motion was pending, the court sustained the demurrer as to the entire SAC, and allowed Carla 20 days to amend to try to assert malpractice and/or breach of fiduciary duty. (Id.) Carla filed her TAC on July 7, 2016, attempting to allege: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; ( 4) concealment; (5) conspiracy; (6) professional negligence; and (7) negligent misrepresentation. (Ex.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HILL VS. LAW OFFICES OF BEATRICE L SNIDER APC

On June 17, 2016, while the summary judgment motion was pending, the court sustained the demurrer as to the entire SAC, and allowed Carla 20 days to amend to try to assert malpractice and/or breach of fiduciary duty. (Id.) Carla filed her TAC on July 7, 2016, attempting to allege: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; ( 4) concealment; (5) conspiracy; (6) professional negligence; and (7) negligent misrepresentation. (Ex.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HILL VS. LAW OFFICES OF BEATRICE L SNIDER APC

On June 17, 2016, while the summary judgment motion was pending, the court sustained the demurrer as to the entire SAC, and allowed Carla 20 days to amend to try to assert malpractice and/or breach of fiduciary duty. (Id.) Carla filed her TAC on July 7, 2016, attempting to allege: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; ( 4) concealment; (5) conspiracy; (6) professional negligence; and (7) negligent misrepresentation. (Ex.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHEILA GIANELLI VS MARK SCHWARTZ ET AL

Plaintiff is also not entitled to summary adjudication on her breach of fiduciary duty cause of action. To prevail on a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must prove (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship and duty on the part of the defendant, (2) the defendant’s breach of that duty, and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach. City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 483.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

MITCHELL MIDDLETON VS MICHAEL D WAKS ET AL

Bish’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED as to the Third Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2019

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

    Oct 31, 2019

  • 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

    Oct 30, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SAMBITO V. RELATIVITY SPORTS, LLC

Fourteenth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty): CACI Nos. 4101 and 4102 describe the elements necessary to prove a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. The SAC alleges that Steve Fine was in a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. (SAC, ¶ 269.) The SAC does not allege that Defendant was in a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. The SAC relies on a conspiracy and aiding and abetting theories as to Defendant. (SAC, ¶ 271.) Under American Master Lease, LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2019

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

Breach of Fiduciary Duty 5. Professional Negligence 6. Lack of Informed Consent 7. Negligent Hiring and Supervision I. Sabbaghzadeh’s Demurrer Defendant Sabbaghzadeh demurs to the 1st – 6th causes of action on the grounds of uncertainty and the failure to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action. UNCERTAINTY Demurrer on grounds of uncertainty will not be sustained unless the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. (Koury v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SLOAN VS. BARRETT

However, plaintiff’s causes of action for second through fifth causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, breach of fiduciary duty, and sexual harassment, respectively, are directly related to the professional services rendered by defendant, and emanate from the sessions in which defendant provided psychological services. (Complaint, ¶¶ 17-20, 31, 39, 47.) As such, these causes of action are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13. Defendant, Dean J.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2019

WHOLISTIC INVESTMENTS, LLC V. ROGOWAY

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

  • Judge

    Ksenia Tsenin for the Hon. Patrick M. Broderick

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

TATIANA CARMONA VS PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CA ETAL

The same ruling is appropriate for Carmona’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty claim. “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.” (IIG Wireless, Inc. v. Yi (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 630, 646.) Ricci’s testimony satisfies County’s burden to show that no triable issues of fact exist as to County’s breach of duty or damages resulting therefrom.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

LEE QUILLAR VS. BROOKE TAFRESHI

The complaint alleges six counts: (1) fraudulent concealment; (2) intentional misrepresentation; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) professional misconduct; (5) professional negligence; and (6) filing of false and misleading documents. DA Stephan and DDA Tafreshi are named as defendants in all counts. Kernan is named as a defendant in counts one, two, five, and six. Kernan now demurs to counts one, two, five, and six of the complaint, and seeks to strike certain portions thereof. ROA 35-40.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  « 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.