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

101-125 of 784 results

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

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

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

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

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

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

YAN LI VS APRIL LI

The professional negligence cause of action is rooted in the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action. Plaintiffs’ request for adjudication of this cause of action is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 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

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

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

AWARE SELF STORAGE VS SALISBURY GROUP INC

This is a tort action for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty arising out of their role as counsel for Plaintiff in the underlying action; it is not a contract action for obligations arising out of contracting parties. The facts are sufficiently alleged against Plaintiff without any need to assert alter ego.

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2019

ALBERTO CERVANTES VS ROBERT BE

Plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Accordingly, the demurrer is overruled.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2019

KATHYRIA GALINDO ET AL VS INGA DIATCHKOVA ET AL

Jimenez; Nancy Galindo; Monica Peraza Gomez; Ashley Gomez; Michael Gomez; ABEM; Great Western; David Franco (“Franco”); Re/Max Top Producers (“ReMax”); Tammey Mai (“Mai”); and Realty Executives for: (1) negligence; (2) breach of contract; (3) misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) non-disclosure; (6) breach of fiduciary duty; (7) professional negligence; (8) indemnification; (9) apportionment of fault; (10) declaratory relief.[2] On June 2, 2016, Plaintiffs represented to the court that they

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2019

CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ VS PETER M STEINBERG A LAW CORP ET AL

BACKGROUND This is an action in which Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed professional negligence in the course of representing Plaintiff in a personal injury action by, among other things, failing to appear for trial and failing to inform Plaintiff of the trial date in the personal injury action. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) legal malpractice; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) constructive fraud; and (4) concealment.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2019

ARCELI AVILA ET AL. VS CHILDREN'S DENTAL SURGERY CENTER,

Plaintiffs seek damages for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, lack of informed consent, and gross negligence. Demurrer “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer . . ., to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: . . .(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (f) The pleading is uncertain. . ., ‘uncertain’ includes ambiguous and unintelligible.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2019

GONG, ET AL. V. NRT WEST, INC., ET AL.

Procedural Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiffs filed the complaint on January 4, 2018, asserting claims for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty (against all defendants); (2) breach of duty of confidentiality (against all defendants); (3) breach of duty against self-dealing (against Coldwell and Concepcion); and (4) professional negligence (against Fiske). In May 2009, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication (“MSJ/MSA”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

LAWRENCE HASHA, ET AL. V. ARASH PADIDAR, ET AL.

Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action RMCSJ argues that the Court should sustain its demurrer to the fourth cause of action for battery, fifth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, and the sixth cause of action for negligence because those causes of action are duplicative of the eighth cause of action for negligence. (Mem. Ps. & As., pp. 4:7-8:27.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

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

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

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EMRANI VS GOODMAN MD

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIA RAMIREZ, ET AL. VS SHEIDA SHOALEHVAR

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. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (IIG Wireless, Inc. v. Yi (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 630, 646.) This cause of action is distinct from a claim of professional negligence. (Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086.) Defendants’ argument that this cause of action is duplicative is unpersuasive.

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARCO LOPEZ VS. ELVA ARNAJO

Professional Negligence 3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 4. Intentional Misrepresentation 5. Negligent Misrepresentation 6. Conspiracy to Defraud 7. Debt Collection Harassment. UNCERTAINTY Demurrer on grounds of uncertainty will not be sustained unless the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. (Koury v. Maly’s of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) The court finds the SAC is not so uncertain that Defendant cannot reasonably respond.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

BLANCA MICHEL VS SANDRA I. SANTOYO

Breach of Fiduciary Duty (v. 24Hour Real Estate & Reyes) 15. Negligent Misrepresentation (v. 24Hour Real Estate & Reyes) 16. B&P 17200 (v. 24Hour Real Estate & Reyes) 17. Negligence (v. Escrownet) [The SAC then lists the 16th cause of action as Breach of Fiduciary Duty (v. Escrownet); the 17th cause of action is now alleged as B&P 17200 (v. Escrownet); and the SAC skips the 18th cause of action.] 19. Aiding and Abetting (v. Fierro) 20. Unjust Enrichment 21. Quiet Title 22.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BLANCA MICHEL VS SANDRA I. SANTOYO

Breach of Fiduciary Duty (v. 24Hour Real Estate & Reyes) 15. Negligent Misrepresentation (v. 24Hour Real Estate & Reyes) 16. B&P 17200 (v. 24Hour Real Estate & Reyes) 17. Negligence (v. Escrownet) [The SAC then lists the 16th cause of action as Breach of Fiduciary Duty (v. Escrownet); the 17th cause of action is now alleged as B&P 17200 (v. Escrownet); and the SAC skips the 18th cause of action.] 19. Aiding and Abetting (v. Fierro) 20. Unjust Enrichment 21. Quiet Title 22.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 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 01, 2019

JOSE E SANCHEZ, ET AL VS AURA PATRICIA CHICAS, ET AL

Alfaro, d/b/a Household Realty and/or Antelope Realty (“Alfaro”, and collectively the “Defendants”) Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action on March 22, 2018, alleging eight (8) causes of action for (1) Rescission; (2) Claim & Delivery; (3) Conversion; (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (5) Professional Negligence; (6) Negligent Misrepresentation; (7) Intentional Misrepresentation; and (8) Fraud.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • 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.