Stueve v. Berger Kahn CA4/3

Filed 12/18/13 Stueve v. Berger Kahn CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

RUTH MCCLAMMA STUEVE et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G047382

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2010-00411651)

BERGER KAHN, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nancy Wieben Stock, Judge. Reversed. Keobopha Keopong; Barnes Law and Robert E. Barnes for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane and Allen L. Michel for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

This appeal is a companion to the appeals addressed in our opinions in Case Nos. G046253 and G047121, being filed concurrently herewith. We do not reiterate the lengthy facts of the underlying litigation here. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs (the Stueves) generally assert that they have been deprived of their shares of the Alta Dena Dairy fortune through the conjoint activities of Attorneys Raymond A. Novell and Jay Wayne Allen, who drained off the family assets through a spider web of actionable wrongs. Because Attorney Allen worked at the law firm of Berger Kahn for a period of time while he allegedly engaged in these nefarious activities, the Stueves named Berger Kahn as a defendant in the litigation. In this opinion, we address only the appeal of the Stueves who are individuals, challenging the dismissal of their third amended complaint as against Berger Kahn. We reverse. We cannot agree that the statute of limitations necessarily bars all causes of action as a matter of law. Moreover, it is not apparent that the individual Stueves are unable to allege sufficient facts to frame a viable cause of action under any legal theory. I FACTS A. Second Amended Complaint: The Stueves filed a 331-page second amended complaint against Attorney Novell, Attorney Allen, Berger Kahn, and dozens of others. The 11 causes of action against Berger Kahn included negligent misrepresentation, fraud by intentional misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, constructive fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.), violations of the prudent investor rule, financial elder abuse, and negligent hiring and supervision. Berger Kahn filed a Civil Code section 1714.10 motion to strike and two demurrers to the second amended complaint. The court granted, in part, Berger Kahn’s