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.

Torts
Professional Malpractice
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

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

Cary A. Kinkead

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.


#96146

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

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