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

201-225 of 783 results

GLOBAL DISCOVERY BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION VS. AL THANI

The Weintraub parties argue that the Court previously ruled that Khoury had failed to properly plead his 7th cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the Harringtons. Because the court sustained the Harringtons’ demurrer to the 7th cause of action without leave to amend, the aiding and abetting claim against the Weintraub parties must also fail.

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2019

RONALD AULD VS VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

Fourth Cause of Action for 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.’ [Citation.]” (Tribeca Companies, LLC v. First American Title Ins. Co. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1114.) The breach of fiduciary duty can be based on either negligence or fraud. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2019

STEVE CANCHOLA, ET AL. V. MERRILL & ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE, ET AL.

On May 11, 2018, Steve and Lisa Canchola (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Merrill & Associates Real Estate (“Merrill”), Andrew Berry, Scott Berry, Kleck Road, LLC (“Kleck”), and Phoenix Construction & Remodeling (“Phoenix Construction”).1 Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) on December 10, 2018, alleging (1) fraudulent concealment; (2) intentional misrepresentation; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) constructive fraud; (5) professional negligence; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7)

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2019

SOPHIA SHUMAKER VS C.S. SCARCELLA & ASSOCIATES

Breach of Fiduciary Duty On September 18, 2018, the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On September 28, 2018, judgment was filed. On November 1, 2018, Defendants filed their notice of entry of judgment and a memorandum of costs.

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2019

LUCAS VS THE LAW OFFICES OF NATHAN MUBASHER

The FAC set forth six causes of action: (1) professional negligence/legal malpractice; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (6) abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Following a meet and confer between the parties, Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint (“SAC”) on November 27, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2019

YINGLING V. WAGNER

Plaintiff’s two causes of action are for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. An element of both causes of action is damages caused by the defendant. (See Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley LLP v. Superior Court (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 590; Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086.) A malpractice plaintiff "must prove that the underlying judgment could have been collected", not only that the debtor was "solvent." (Garretson v. Harold I.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed September 10, 2018, 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

    Apr 19, 2019

JACK DANIELS, ET AL. V. ALYSSA SAMRICK, ET AL.

The Complaint sets out causes of action for professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. A demurrer is treated as “admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “A demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleading.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2019

  • Judge

    Monique Langhorne

  • County

    Napa County, CA

GEORGE DANIELS V. RALPH I. GUNTHER, ET AL.

Regardless of whether Coldwell were Gunther’s agents or not (and it appears based on the evidence and facts of this case currently before the Court that they were3), Gunther has provided no evidence showing any negligence, fraud, misrepresentations, or breach of fiduciary duty toward either Plaintiff or Gunther on the part of Hall or Premier as broker for the sale.

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2019

C PATTON INVESTMENTS LLC VS AMHERST CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC ET

Associations, Inc. ((2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1145), Cross-Defendants argue that the third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is time barred under the two-year limitations period under Code of Civil Procedure section 339 because, as in Hydro-Mill Co., Inc., the claim of breach of fiduciary duty “amount[ed] to a claim of professional negligence” and a plaintiff could not “prolong the limitations period by invoking a fiduciary theory of liability.” (Id. at 1159.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2019

MARY ELLEN MORO ET AL VS LENNY ESMOND ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2019

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRANCINE KOKENIS VS GEORDIE DUCKLER ET AL

“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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2019

FAYE SISKEL VS ASTORIA 2 ET AL

Second Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Defendants assert that Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. (Demurrer, p. 17:20-21.) “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.” (People ex rel. Harris v. Rizzo (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 921, 950.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LISA BOREL VS CONGRESS MEDICAL ASSOCIATES INC ET AL

Demurrer to 5th cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty To state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship; (2) its breach; and (3) damage proximately caused by that breach. (Roberts v. Lomanto (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1553, 1562.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2019

HOWARD CHOW ET AL VS SZETO & COMPANY ACCOUNTANCY CORP

The same analysis renders appellants' claims against K&A for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract untimely. Since the gravamen of the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims are the purported malpractice, the two-year statute of limitations applies. (See Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal. App. 4th 1200, 1207 [51 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

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

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADLI LAW GROUP PC VS RASHEED SOOFI ET AL

First Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty).

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2019

FILIPPINI WEALTH MANAGEMENT INC ET AL VS MEISTER & NUNES PC

(“Meister”) in this action, alleging causes of action for (1) professional negligence, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) constructive fraud, and (4) violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq. Each of the causes of action is maintained by all of the plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX VS MUSTAPHA BAHA, ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

EDEN HILL MISSION ET AL VS DAVID S KIM ET AL

On December 21, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), alleging 1) legal malpractice by Eden Hill against Kim and the Firm; 2) breach of fiduciary duty by Eden Hill against Kim and the Firm; and 3) malicious prosecution by Kern against Defendants. The SAC alleges that Park and Plaintiffs have a long history of litigation. Eden Hill owns a wilderness property in San Bernardino National Forest, where it hosts religious ceremonies.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

MITCHELL MIDDLETON VS MICHAEL D WAKS ET AL

procedural history Middleton filed the Complaint on May 29, 2018, alleging four causes of action: Breach of Contract Professional Negligence Breach of Fiduciary Duty Conversion On January 11, 2019, this Court granted Bish and Waks’s Motion to Strike the prayer for punitive damages from the Complaint as to them. Middleton filed the present Motion to Compel Further Responses on November 9, 2018, and served it that same day. No opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 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

    Apr 03, 2019

MALINZHU JIA VS. QI WANG, ET AL

The complaint, filed April 19, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud – intentional misrepresentation; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) fraud – concealment; (4) fraud – promise without intent to perform; (5) constructive fraud; (6) breach of fiduciary duty; (7) breach of contract; (8) breach of implied good faith and fair dealing; (9) conversion; (10) unfair and unlawful business practices; (11) negligence; (12) professional negligence; (13) unauthorized practice of law; and (14) alter ego.

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ABEL V. MCCUTCHAN, JR.

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 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.