![]() Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 859, 862, 110 Cal. He did not share in the profits or losses of the Christensen Firm. Shapiro was a non-equity partner in the Christensen Firm. (fraudulent practice), violation of Government Code section 13975.1 (receiver recovery of monies unlawfully obtained), and violation of Civil Code section 3439.04 et seq. Plaintiffs alleged that the money belonged to the receivership,Īnd asserted causes of action for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, money had and received, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. Plaintiffs further alleged that Shapiro and the Christensen Firm 3 appeared as Laing's counsel of record in federal criminal proceedings Shapiro, acting for himself and as the agent of the Christensen Firm, directed a group of those associated with Laing to go to Laing's residence in Palm Springs, California, and there to obtain 12 duffel bags, each containing $500,000 in cash that Shapiro knew or should have known had been unlawfully obtained Laing's associates converted 10 of those bags of money and some of that money was used to post bail for Laing and to pay the fees of Shapiro and the Christensen Firm. ![]() Plaintiffs alleged that Laing was arrested and charged with various federal offenses in connection with PCO and ultimately pleaded guilty to certain charges. Plaintiffs alleged in their Third Amended Complaint that PCO purported to be in the business of investing in viatical settlements, 2 but that, in fact, PCO never purchased any viatical settlements even though Laing, operating through PCO, obtained over $89 million in loans from investors for that purpose. We affirm, however, the trial court's order granting summary adjudication in favor of the Christensen Firm on plaintiffs' causes of action for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty. We reverse the summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs have raised triable issues of fact with respect to whether Shapiro committed his alleged acts within the scope of his authority as a partner of the Christensen Firm. The trial court granted the Christensen Firm's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Christensen Firm cannot be held vicariously liable for Shapiro's alleged acts. and Personal Choice Opportunities (collectively PCO). Laing (Laing), who was arrested and ultimately convicted for engaging in fraudulent activities with PCO, Inc. Shapiro, a named partner in the Christensen Firm, was the attorney for David W. Shapiro (Shapiro) and his law firm, Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP (Christensen Firm) alleging that Shapiro improperly obtained monies that belonged to the receivership. ![]() ![]() Fisher (plaintiffs), filed an action against Robert L. and Personal Choice Opportunities, by and through their duly appointed receiver, Barry A. Markham, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.Ĭhristensen, Glaser, Fink, Jacobs, Weil & Shapiro, Kerry Garvis Wright and Laura Premi, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent. Nordrehaug, La Jolla Clark & Markham and David R. April 30, 2007.īlumenthal & Markham, Norman B. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5. 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 516 150 Cal.App.4th 384 PCO, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,ĬHRISTENSEN, MILLER, FINK, JACOBS, GLASER, WEIL & SHAPIRO, LLP, Defendant and Respondent. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |