Bernard Streiff, Louise Streiff v. Adam P. Rosenberg
Published: Mar. 16, 2013 | Result Date: Nov. 1, 2011 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 37-2009-00100859-CU-PN-CTL Bench Decision – Defense
Court
San Diego Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Philip H. Dyson
(Law Office of Philip H. Dyson)
Defendant
Traci S. Lagasse
(Lagasse Branch Bell Kinkead LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
E. Ludlow Keeney Jr.
(technical)
Defendant
James E. King
(technical)
Facts
Plaintiffs Bernard and Louise Streiff engaged the Defendant, Adam P. Rosenberg, an accountant and a non-practicing lawyer, to assist them in forming an LLC to own and operate a restaurant known as the Calypso Fish House in Encinitas. The Plaintiffs formed the LLC and opened the restaurant with a partner the Defendant had known for many years who was also a current accounting client. The Defendant also served as the restaurant's accountant once it was opened. Eventually, the restaurant failed and the Plaintiffs sued the Defendant for breach of his fiduciary duties as a lawyer.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The Plaintiffs alleged the Defendant had information related to the Plaintiffs' restaurant partner which Defendant should have shared, and in failing to do so, the Defendant breached a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs as their lawyer. The Plaintiffs also claimed that the Defendant had an unwaivable conflict of interest in assisting both the Plaintiffs and their partner in setting up the LLC.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The Defendant argued that he never served as the Plaintiffs' lawyer since his only arguably legal activity was preparing and filing the LLC paperwork. The Defendant also argued that even if preparing an LLC is considered legal work, his client was the LLC, not the individual Plaintiffs, and he therefore owed no duty to the Plaintiffs.
Settlement Discussions
The Plaintiffs refused to discuss settlement. The Defendant issued a CCP 998 Offer to Compromise in the amount of $8,000.
Result
Minutes before closing arguments were to proceed, the Court granted Defendant's non-suit, which argued that Defendant was never the lawyer to the individual the Plaintiffs and therefore did not owe them a duty of care.
Other Information
The Defendant filed a post-trial Motion to Recover Costs of suit as well as expert fees (based on an expired 998 offer), which was granted. FILING DATE: Oct. 26, 2009.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390