On 04/25/2018 WILLARD FORD filed an Other lawsuit against STEVE DEBRO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DAVID SOTELO and DANIEL S. MURPHY. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DANIEL S. MURPHY
DOES 1 TO 20
AUDLEY & AUDLEY
AUDLEY MICHAEL RICHARD
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH A. OSTROW
OSTROW KENNETH ALEXANDER
11/25/2019: Notice of Ruling
11/15/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE)
11/7/2019: Reply - REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
10/17/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE)
8/27/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL)
8/20/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
8/20/2019: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
5/31/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike
7/2/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION RE: SETTING NEW HEARING DATE FOR DEMURRRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
4/11/2019: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEMURRER
4/3/2019: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND
8/17/2018: (1) NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; ETC.
7/16/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -
6/7/2018: DECLARATION OF MICHAEL AUDLEY, ESQ IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
5/24/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
5/24/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
4/25/2018: SUMMONS -
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Non-Appearance Case Review (reentry of judgment following sustaining of demurrer to Third Amended Complaint without leave to amend) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review re: entry of judgment following su...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review re: entry of judgment following su...) of 12/18/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketJudgment (following sustaining of demurrer to Third Amended Complaint without leave to amend); Filed by Steve Debro (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Steve Debro (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketReply (IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT); Filed by Steve Debro (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 40; Jury Trial (and Mandatory Settlement Conference pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1380) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketDECLARATION OF MICHAEL AUDLEY, ESQ IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSERead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Willard Ford (Plaintiff); Eric Drasin (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Willard Ford (Plaintiff); Eric Drasin (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC703789 Hearing Date: November 15, 2019 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Steve DeBro
OPPOSITION: Plaintiff Eric Drasin
Plaintiff Eric Drasin alleges that he and William Ford were partners with Defendant in a project called the Olympic Auditorium Project. The partnership was formed in 2012. The purpose of the project was to create various products using the photographs of Theo Ehret, the house photographer of the Olympic Auditorium, a former sports venue in which numerous sporting events took place. Plaintiff’s April 25, 2018 filed case, alleges that Defendant failed to give the other partners access to the partnership’s books and records.
On April 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) against Defendant, alleging causes of action for:
Dissolution of Partnership
Accounting of Partnership
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
The TAC was filed by Plaintiff and Ford. Ford has since been dismissed from the case. Plaintiff is currently self-represented.
Standard: Plaintiff is self-represented. Self-represented litigants are held to the same standards that apply to licensed attorneys. (See Lombardi v. Citizens Nat’l Trust & Sav. Bank (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 206, 208-209 [stating that self-represented litigants are “restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required of those qualified to practice law before our courts.”].)
A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the pleading at issue as a matter of law. City of Chula Vista v. County of San Diego (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1713, 1719. A demurrer may be sustained where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. CCP § 430.10(e). The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403; see also Shields v. County of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 (“On demurrer, pleadings are read liberally and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true.”) However, the Court does not assume the truth of allegations expressing conclusions of law or allegations contradicted by the exhibits to the complaint or by matters of which judicial notice may be taken. Vance v. Villa Park Mobilehome Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 698, 709. If the demurrer is sustained, plaintiff “has the burden of proving the possibility of cure by amendment.” Czajkowski v. Haskell & White, LLP (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 166, 173 (citing Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 78-79.)
First and Second Causes of Action: Dissolution of Partnership and Accounting of Partnership
Both causes of action require the existence of a partnership. The essential elements of a partnership are a sharing of profits as well as losses and a right to joint management and control of the business. Cislaw v. Southland Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1297.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that a partnership existed between them. Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to allege the partnership’s ownership structure, the partners’ capital contributions, the profit distribution, and how the partnership would operate.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the existence of a partnership. In one long paragraph, Plaintiff alleges that in 2012, he entered into a “partnership” with Defendant via an oral agreement. (TAC, ¶ 3.) The purpose of this partnership was to create various products using the photographs of Theo Ehret. However, Plaintiff’s TAC fails to allege the essential elements of a partnership, the sharing of profits and a right to joint management and control. Although Plaintiff may refer to his business relationship with Defendant as a partnership, without alleging these elements his allegation is insufficient. Accordingly, the demurrer to the first and second causes of action is SUSTAINED.
Third Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty
The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach. Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086.
Plaintiff alleges that a fiduciary duty exists because there was a partnership between the parties. As discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts as to the existence of a partnership. Accordingly, the demurer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED.
Conclusion: Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED and Defendant is to give notice.