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

151-175 of 785 results

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS INC VS MIAO

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS INC VS MIAO [E-FILE]

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS INC VS MIAO [E-FILE]

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VESCE VS. TULLOCH

Plaintiff purchasers bring this action for fraudulent concealment; intentional misrepresentation; violation of Civil Code Sections 1102 and 2079; breach of fiduciary duty; and professional negligence, alleging that Defendants sellers and real estate brokers and agents concealed and failed to disclose an encumbrance on the Property during the sale, and that Defendants Pacific Union, Kelly Wood, and Dana Green (together, the Broker/Agent Defendants) were negligent in failing to identify the encumbrance during

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

XUE LENG GARD VS ANGELA WALLACE ET AL

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. With respect to NAC, Plaintiff alleges that NAC, in part, mishandled her claim for insurance benefits in connection with her late husband (“Mr. Gard”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YUSUF BADAT, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS JOHN COONEY, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

They allege that they lost their investments due to various Defendants’ violations of the Corporations Code, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendant John Cooney demurs to the causes of action alleged against him in the second amended complaint and moves to strike portions of the second amended complaint. He also requests sanctions in the amount of $3600 against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HOWARD VS. THE ENTERPRISE COUNSEL GROUP

The arbitration provision found at paragraph 11 provides, “[a]ny Fee Dispute not resolved by a binding Section 6200 Arbitration, along with all other possible disputes arising under or in connection with this Agreement or in connection with ECG’s provision of legal services to Client including, without limitation, any claim for breach of contract, professional negligence or breach of fiduciary duty (as well as fee disputes not resolved by binding Section 6200 Arbitration), shall be determined by binding arbitration

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

SEBLE MULUGETHA, ET AL. VS ANTREAS HINDOYAN, ET AL.

Substantive First Cause of Action—Legal Malpractice, Second Cause of Action—Negligent Advice to Client and Fifth Cause of Action—Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Defendant Antreas Hindoyan argues that these causes of action do not sufficiently allege a breach of duty on the part of the attorney which caused plaintiffs the damages complained of.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2019

GRANUM PARTNERS V. WILLOUGHBY, STUART, BENING & COOK, ET AL.

SIs 2, 6, 10 and 14 SIs 2, 6, 10 and 14 seek facts upon which GP bases its contention that Bradley is liable for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional negligence, respectively.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

GIZMO BEVERAGES, INC. VS. PARK

Apodaca’s demurrer to the third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty fails for this reason as well. As to the fourth cause of action against Murphy, professional negligence can be generally pled. (Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782; Lipscomb v. Krause (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 970, 975.) RHL has adequately alleged a claim. (TACC, ¶¶ 257-265.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

GIZMO BEVERAGES, INC. VS. PARK

Apodaca’s demurrer to the third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty fails for this reason as well. As to the fourth cause of action against Murphy, professional negligence can be generally pled. (Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782; Lipscomb v. Krause (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 970, 975.) RHL has adequately alleged a claim. (TACC, ¶¶ 257-265.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

MICHELE LOVING VS. SCOTT EISENKOP MD

The court sustains, without leave to amend, the demurrer to the third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, on the ground that no personal interest unrelated to the patient's health has been alleged. See Moore v. Regents (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 129. The court grants the motion to strike the punitive damage allegations for failure to comply with CCP 425.13. All causes of action arise out of alleged professional negligence within the meaning of that statute. See 36A Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JANE DOE D.M. VS PASADENA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, LTD., ET AL.

The elements of a constructive fraud cause of action are: (1) fiduciary relationship; (2) nondisclosure (breach of fiduciary duty); (3) intent to deceive, and (4) reliance and resulting injury (causation). (Younan v. Equifax Inc. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 498, 516, fn. 14.) These causes of action are torts of deceit and the facts constituting each element must be alleged with particularity; the claims cannot be saved by referring to the policy favoring liberal construction of pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX VS MUSTAPHA BAHA, ET AL

Code §52.1); (6) Deleted; (7) Deleted; (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”); (9) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”); (10) Negligence; (11) Invasion of Privacy; (12) Fraud and Deceit; (13) Deleted; (14) Breach of Contract; (15) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (16) Deleted; (17) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (18) Professional Negligence; and (19) Unfair Business Practices.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SEAN O?BRIEN, ET AL. VS DOWNTOWN LA LAW GROUP, LLP, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege six causes of action for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) conversion, (3) fraud, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) breach of contract, and (6) professional negligence. Defendants now demur to the Complaint and move to strike the allegations related to the request for punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer and motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

YUWANDA SAMANUKORN, ET AL VS. JPCL DEVELOPMENT LLC, ET AL

The FAC alleges causes of action for: (1) Fraud and Deceit; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; (3) Constructive Fraud; (4) Breach of Statutory Duty; (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (6) Breach of Contract; (7) Professional Negligence; (8) Negligent Misrepresentation; (9) Professional Negligence; and (10) Breach of Implied Covenant Against Encumbrances.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

CVJASMINE GONG ET AL VS NRT WEST INC ET AL DEFENDANTS NRT WEST VS. NRT WEST INC ET AL DEFENDANTS NRT WEST

Damages are an essential element of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. (See Pellegrini v. Weiss (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 515, 524 [stating elements of cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2019

WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO. VS ESCROW DOC ET AL

Plaintiff alleges the eighth and ninth causes of action for (8) professional negligence and (9) breach of fiduciary duty against Defendants United Escrow, Konstant Closings, Kabilakfas, and Simon, and further alleges the tenth cause of action for (10) breach of escrow agreement against Defendant United Escrow.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FILIPPINI WEALTH MANAGEMENT INC ET AL VS MEISTER & NUNES PC

Plaintiffs’ second cause of action is for breach of fiduciary duty. “In order to plead a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must show the existence of a fiduciary relationship, its breach, and damage caused by the breach.” (Apollo Capital Fund LLC v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 226, 244.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MANUEL HUITRON VS EDWARD A. TORRES, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FAYE SISKEL VS ASTORIA 2 ET AL

Second Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal without prejudice as to the second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty on June 28, 2019, thus the demurrer to the second cause of action is MOOT. 3.

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

J C BOUCHER V. WALSH DELANEY ATTORNEYS, ET AL.

Boucher alleges a breach of fiduciary duty in numerous ways, including failing to represent Boucher loyally and charging unconscionable fees. (Complaint, ¶ 56.) Breach of fiduciary duty, as distinct from professional negligence, generally relates to an attorney’s failure to protect a client’s property or confidences and to ethical conflicts with the client’s interests. (See Rest.3d The Law Governing Lawyers, §§ 16(3), 49.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2019

WEI-LING JEN VS. LINDA LAU

As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff filed the instant action alleging two causes of action sounding in (1) Legal Malpractice, and (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2019

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX VS MUSTAPHA BAHA, ET AL

As such, the demurrer will be sustained. --- Seventeenth Cause of Action (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. As with the prior two causes of action, the Seventeenth Cause of Action fails on the same grounds stated by the Court in its April 05, 2019, Order.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

346 VERMONT ASSOCIATES LLC VS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

The SAC alleges causes of action for: (1) fraudulent concealment; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) constructive fraud; (6) professional negligence; (7) accounting; (8) money had and received; (9) unjust enrichment; (10) violation of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200 et seq.; and (11) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The third cause of action was intentionally omitted from the SAC based on a prior order of this Court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2019

  « 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.