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 Fiduciary Duty
Fraud and Accounting

Cutting Edge Sports Training Inc., Todd Norman v. East Bay Velocity LLC, Sport Performance Training LLC, Velocity Sports Performance of Redondo Beach LLC, Peter Barbaresi, J. Todd Anderson, and Does 1 to 50, inclusive

Published: Oct. 15, 2016 | Result Date: May 19, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 30-2013-00672436-CU-BT-CJC Verdict –  $322,631

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Isaac R. Zfaty
(Much Shelist PC)

Ryan N. Burns
(Much Shelist PC)


Defendant

Alton G. Burkhalter
(Burkhalter, Kessler, Clement & George LLP)

Dale Michael Oberbeck
(Burkhalter Kessler Clement & George LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Raymond Clark
(technical)

Defendant

Richard M. Holstrom
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Todd Norman is owner of Cutting Edge Sports Training Inc. a sports performance training center in Orange County. Peter Barbaresi and J. Todd Anderson were owners/representatives of defendant East Bay Velocity LLC, a competitor sports performance training company. The parties agreed to merge their businesses, and operated jointly for a year and a half.

Velocity Sports Performance of Redondo Beach LLC was dismissed from the case.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed defendant breached the agreement between the parties and evicted plaintiffs from the business. Plaintiff contended that defendant made multiple material misrepresentations regarding the financial condition of the Velocity business, defendant's intentions regarding providing plaintiff an equity interest, and their true intent of absorbing all of plaintiffs' business, leaving them with nothing.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that the parties did not have an enforceable agreement, and that plaintiffs defamed them at the end of the business relationship.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiffs offered to settle pre-trial for $230,000.

Damages

According to defense, plaintiff sought $500,000 in damages.

Result

Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs for $325,000 for negligent misrepresentation in connection with a partnership dispute, with $2,369 in offset damages on cross-complaint. According to defense, of plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation, plaintiff prevailed only on the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Other Information

Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and Motion for New Trial were denied. FILING DATE: Aug. 29, 2013.

Deliberation

two days

Length

four weeks


#125116

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

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