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.

Corporations
Breach of Contract
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Simplon Ballpark, LLC v. John D. Scull, aka Jack Scull and Charles Montague Evans III, aka Chuck Evans

Published: Sep. 29, 2012 | Result Date: Jun. 20, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 37-2011-00084777-CU-NP-CTL Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Pamela C. Chalk
(Murchison & Cumming LLP)

Anton N. Handal
(Greenspoon Marder LLP)


Defendant

Su L. Barry
(Barry APC)

Stephen M. Hogan


Facts

Simplon Corp. was created for the purpose of engaging in real estate development by John Scull and Charles Evans III. In late 2004, Scull negotiated and directed the acquisition of several parcels of property in downtown San Diego for the Simplon Ballpark Project. Scull and Evans rose over $11 million from private investors and approximately $38 million in loans. In March 2008, the project went belly-up and Simplon Ballpark LLC filed for bankruptcy.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Simplon Ballpark sued Scull and Evans, alleging that the defendants had breached their fiduciary duties. Simplon contended that Scull and Evans breached their duties by self-dealing, commingling their assets, failing to segregate money and property, and failing to issue tax returns. Simplon also contended that the defendants took advantage of their control over the project and its funds, causing it to fail.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Scull denied any wrongdoing, claiming that he received no money in connection with the project. He alleged that instead, he incurred substantial losses when the project failed. He also contended that Simplon was precluded by res judicata, collateral estoppel, lack of standing, lack of authority to prosecute such actions, and waiver of such claims.

Damages

Simplon sought recovery of $5,501,919 in damages.

Result

The court ruled in favor of Simplon and initially awarded $5,501,919 in total damages. However, following trial, the court granted defendants' judgment notwithstanding the verdict, rendering a defense judgment.


#90261

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

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