This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

LASVN #2, JPK Holding Company Inc., Raffi D. Krikorian, et al. v. Van Ness and Sperry Inc., Sperry Van Ness Investment Brokerage Services Inc., et al

Published: Jun. 24, 2003 | Result Date: Apr. 18, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC206251 Verdict –  $5,278,380

Judge

Victor E. Chavez

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Ralph C. Loeb

Marc Smith


Defendant

Sheldon E. Eisenberg
(Sullivan & Triggs LLP)

Lloyd C. Charton

Robert H. Dewberry
(Dewberry Firm)


Experts

Plaintiff

Michael Savoy
(technical)

Alan A. Herd
(technical)

Michael J. Wagner
(technical)

David C. Gurnick
(Lewitt Hackman) (technical)

Defendant

Jonathan Edward Solish
(Bryan Cave LLP) (technical)

Samuel K. Freshman
(technical)

Tamara A. Laskin
(technical)

Mark Higgins
(technical)

Frederick Chin
(technical)

Facts

The plaintiffs sued the Sperry Van Ness defendants in connection with the operation of the Sperry Van Ness office in Encino from 1994 to 1999. The office grew to 30 brokers and was profitable. In 1999, Sperry Van Ness nearby offices in Los Angeles County which plaintiff contended resulted in the destruction of the plaintiff's office. The plaintiffs contended that the competing company-owned offices violated territorial protections contained in the parties' agreements and that the agreements constituted an unregistered franchise.

Settlement Discussions

The parties had a mediation before the Hon. Luis A. Cardenas, retired, at which the plaintiffs demanded $2 million. Prior to trial, Sperry Van Ness made a C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $300,000. During trial, Sperry Van Ness demanded $1 million on their cross-complaint.

Damages

The plaintiffs claimed loss of business and employment agreement. The cross-complainants claimed loss of management fees.

Result

The jury awarded the plaintiffs $5,278,381. This comprised $4,378,381 for economic damages and $900,000 in punitive damages. Costs, interest and attorneys' fees claims are pending. The jury awarded Sperry Van Ness zero dollars on its cross-complaint.

Deliberation

four days

Length

10 days


#107388

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390