Modification: Engel v. Pech

JASON ENGEL et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

RICHARD PECH,

Defendant and Respondent.

No. B324560

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22STCV06062)

California Court of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Two

Filed October 19, 2023

ORDER MODIFYING

OPINION AND DENYING

REHEARING

NO CHANGE IN THE

JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 28, 2023, be modified as follows:

1. On page 21, line 4, immediately after the sentence ending with "Engel's malpractice claims were properly dismissed" add as footnote 4 the following footnote:

4 Although the focus of Engel's briefs was the potential malpractice claim, Engel's petition for rehearing argues that Engel still has viable claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. He is wrong. In the operative complaint, Engel alleges that Pech breached the retainer agreement and his fiduciary duty by (1) committing malpractice; and (2) charging fees that, due to his malpractice, were excessive. As described above, however, any damages arising from malpractice belong to the LLP, not Engel, and Engel's payment of fees does not otherwise transfer ownership of the LLP's malpractice claim (or the damages it may have suffered) to Engel. No amendment can cure these defects.

There is no change in the judgment.

Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J.

CHAVEZ, J.

HOFFSTADT, J.