- Fiduciary relationship exists;
- Defendant’s breach of fiduciary duty, meaning misconduct, including self-dealing or personal interest conflicts;
- Defendant’s breach is contrary to interests of Plaintiff; and
- Defendant’s misconduct directly causes damages to Plaintiff.
“A fiduciary relationship has been defined as ‘any relation existing between parties to a transaction wherein one of the parties is … duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other party. Such a relation ordinarily arises where a confidence is reposed by one person in the integrity of another, and in such a relation the party in whom the confidence is reposed, if he voluntarily accepts or assumes to accept the confidence, can take no advantage from his acts relating to the interest of the other party without the latter's knowledge or consent.’ …”
People ex rel. Harris v. Rizzo, 214 Cal. App. 4th 921, 950 (2013).
A fiduciary relationship exists when one of the parties has a duty to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other party. Gilman v. Dalby, 176 Cal. App. 4th 606, 614 (2009)
CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS
Supreme Court of California: Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811, 820 (2011).
California 1st Dist.: Filbin v. Fitzgerald, 211 Cal. App. 4th 154, 174 (2012).
California 2d Dist.: People ex rel. Harris v. Rizzo, 214 Cal. App. 4th 921, 950 (2013).
California 3d Dist.: Roberts v. Lomanto, 112 Cal. App. 4th 1553, 1562 (2003).
California 4thDist.: Jameson v. Desta, 215 Cal. App. 4th 1144, 1164 (2013).
California 5th Dist.: Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co., 140 Cal. App. 4th 1395, 1405 (2006).
California 6th Dist.: Mission West Properties, L.P. v. Republic Properties Corp., 197 Cal. App. 4th 707, 716 (2011); Pellegrini v. Weiss, 165 Cal. App. 4th 515, 524 (2008).
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT
United States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit: Goodworth Holdings, Inc. v. Suh, 99 Fed. Appx. 806, 808 (9th Cir. 2004).
Central District: Global Acquisitions Network v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. CV 12-08758 DDP, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22351, at *18 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2013).
Eastern District: Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, No. 2:12-cv-2938 GEB AC PS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124781, at *16 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2013).
Northern District: Brown v. Brown, No. CV 13-03318 SI, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159199, at *15-16 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2013).
Southern District: Luciani v. Luciani, No.: 3:10-CV-2583-JM (WVG),2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149526, at *12-13 n.6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012).