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

MARK BRAWERMAN ET AL VS LOEB & LOEB LLP ET AL

Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for (1) professional negligence and (2) breach of fiduciary duty. On November 16, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the completion of arbitration. On November 2, 2019, Plaintiffs petitioned to vacate the arbitration award. On January 3, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ petition. Judgment was entered on March 3, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

ZEMANEK & MILLS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VS HASSEN REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

First 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. [Citation.]” (IIG Wireless, Inc. v. Yi (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 630, 646.) HREP alleges that Plaintiff, as its attorney, owed a fiduciary duty to HREP. (FACC, ¶¶ 43, 44.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GARCIA V. DAILY, ET AL.

Procedural Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 30, 2020, asserting claims for (1) professional negligence and (2) breach of fiduciary duty. On May 28, 2020, Daily filed the instant special motion to strike the Complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff opposes the motion. II.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

BARADAR VS. OLIVER

In the absence of allegations regarding these material omissions, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

BRIAN S FORSTER VS ANTHONY MICHAEL PRINCIPE, ET AL.

Therefore, Plaintiff has successful pled a breach of fiduciary duty against Defendants. Defendants’ contentions are not well-taken making demurrer inappropriate. c.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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”].) The allegations made in the SAC as to Dan are as follows: (1) Dan represented to Garcia that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

AWARE SELF STORAGE VS SALISBURY GROUP INC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

JACQUELINE B. VS RAWLS LAW GROUP, P.C., ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Professional Negligence (Legal Malpractice); Breach of Contract; and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. On February 14, 2020, a Notice of Removal to Federal Court was filed. On February 25, 2020, a Notice of Remand from Federal Court was filed. Specially Appearing Defendants RLG, Rawls, and Maryan (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”) move to quash service of the summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

JACQUELINE B. VS RAWLS LAW GROUP, P.C., ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Professional Negligence (Legal Malpractice); Breach of Contract; and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. On February 14, 2020, a Notice of Removal to Federal Court was filed. On February 25, 2020, a Notice of Remand from Federal Court was filed. Specially Appearing Defendants RLG, Rawls, and Maryan (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”) move to quash service of the summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

MICHAEL GOLDBERG VS HALLORAN & SAGE LLP, ET AL.

Cause of Action No. 45: Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty The 45th cause of action (for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty) alleges that Robert Shapiro (“Shapiro”), as the sole individual controlling Woodbridge and all of its funds, assumed fiduciary duties to investors. (Complaint, ­¶ 578.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

JEFFREY FRASCO, ET AL. VS DOMAEN LTD., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Lowe, Axel Schmitzberger, Blanca Cano dba Cano Masonry, and Ruggeri Marble and Granite, Inc. for (1) negligence; (2) negligent supervision; (3) negligence per se; (4) breach of contracts re construction defects; (5) breach of contract re substantial completion; (6) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (7) breach of fiduciary duty; (8) breach of express warranty; (9) breach of implied warranty; (10) unjust enrichment/restitution; (11) accounting; (12) common count: money had and received

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FILIPPINI WEALTH MANAGEMENT INC ET AL VS MEISTER & NUNES PC ET AL

Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed on August 6, 2019, alleges causes of action for (1) professional negligence, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., and (4) conversion. On October 15, 2019, defendant separately served its Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on each plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MICHAEL A NICHOLS ET AL VS GERAGOS & GERAGOS ET AL

LEGAL MALPRACTICE & BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY “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

    Jun 30, 2020

SALVADOR MONTANO VS BHARAT PATEL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SALVADOR MONTANO VS BHARAT PATEL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

STEVEN W. KEREKES, AN INDIVIDUAL VS DANIEL C. FERGUSON, AS TRUSTEE OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED FERGUSON TRUST AND AS EXECUTOR, ET AL.

Ferguson filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff alleging: (1) professional negligence; (2) breach of contract; and (3) breach of fiduciary duty. On April 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of errata to the Complaint. Plaintiff now moves to compel Daniel C. Ferguson, as trustee of the Amended and Restated Ferguson Trust and executor of the last will and testament of Joline C. Ferguson (Defendant), to submit to binding arbitration of all claims alleged in the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

MEIGHAN E.E. HOWARD, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MEIGHAN HOWARD IRREVOCABLE GIFT TRUST NO. 1, ET AL. VS M. NEIL SOLARZ, ET AL.

Neil Solarz (“Solarz”) (collectively, “Defendants”) demur to the 1st (professional negligence) and 2nd (breach of fiduciary duty) causes of action in the complaint of Plaintiff Meighan E.E. Howard, an individual (“Meighan”), and as Trustee of the Meighan Howard 2012 Irrevocable Gift Trust No. 1 (“GT1”) and as Trustee of the Meighan Howard 2012 Irrevocable Gift Trust No. 2 (“GT2”) (collectively, “Plaintiff”).

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

GENEVIEVE DORADO VS MISSION CARE CENTER, ET AL.

Procedural Background On January 6, 2020, plaintiff Genevieve Dorado (‘Plaintiff’) filed the instant action against Defendant Mission Care Center (‘Defendant’) and Does 1 through 10 alleging causes of action for (1) Abuse and Neglect of a Dependent Adult in Violation of Welfare & Institutions Code Section 15600, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and (4) Professional Negligence by a Healthcare Provider.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARGARET A DELIS ET AL VS MONTECITO FINANCIAL SERVICES INC E

The FAC brings thirteen causes of action for 1) Conspiracy to Defraud; 2) Fraud; 3) Securities Fraud; 4) Conversion; 5) Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200; 6) Breach of Written Contract; 7) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 8) Elder Financial Abuse; 9) Dependent Adult Financial Abuse; 10) Professional Negligence; 11) Negligent Misrepresentation; 12) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 13) Accounting. On November 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel third-party Dania S.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FINANCIAL PACIFIC VS. ARCHER NORRIS

In this action for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against Blumhardt and Archer, FPIC now seeks the difference between that sum and the $300,000 for which it could have settled Lewis’ personal injury claim up until January 18, 2016. Analysis As noted above, defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment because FPIC cannot prove actual causation, damages, or duty. Because defendants discuss causation and damages together, so will the court.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

JENSEN V. VAN NOORD

Van Noord for professional negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligent infliction of emotional distress allegedly arising from representation of the plaintiff in a dissolution action. The motion to compel production is attributable to the representation of defendant Van Noord’s law firm, therefore, he can not recover as a discovery monetary sanction attorney fees for the legal services of an associate of the firm in pursuing this motion.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

AMANDA MARTIN VS DENISE CHAMBLISS ET AL

Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) professional negligence; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants filed a demurrer to each cause of action in the complaint. Following oral argument, the Court sustained the demurrer only as to the fifth cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2020

JOANN SMITH V. THIRD DAY CHURCHES, INC., ET AL.

The demurrer to the tenth cause of action for professional negligence by an attorney is overruled. The demurrer to the eleventh cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is overruled. Michael Chriscione’s demurrer to the twelfth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is sustained with leave to amend. The demurrer to the twelfth cause of action brought by TDN and Aurora is overruled. Motion to Strike. The motion to strike is denied.

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2020

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 demurred to counts one, two, five, and six of the complaint, and sought to have the court strike certain portions thereof. ROA 35-40.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ESPERANZA MOLINA VS FOREST LAWN MORTUARY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The punitive damages are also sufficiently sought in connection with the stated intentional tort claims for trespass, and breach of fiduciary duty based on conduct occurring after the error was discovered. However, the motion argues that the pleading seeks to impose punitive damages on defendants as an employer for acts undertaken by its employees, when there are no allegations of corporate ratification.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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.