Huntsman v. Krupnick CA2/6

Filed 5/20/15 Huntsman v. Krupnick CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ROY HUNTSMAN, 2d Civil No. B253877 (Super. Ct. No. SC044885) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Ventura County)

v.

NEIL L. KRUPNICK et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Roy Huntsman, an attorney, appeals from the judgment entered in favor of respondents Neil L. Krupnick, also an attorney, and his professional law corporation, Neil Lawrence Krupnick, Inc., dba Krupnick & Associates. After a jury returned a special verdict in respondents' favor on appellant's legal causes of action, appellant demanded that the court try his equitable cause of action for an accounting. The court refused. Appellant's sole contention on appeal is that the court's refusal was erroneous. We conclude that the special verdict rendered moot the cause of action for an accounting. We therefore affirm. Factual and Procedural Background Appellant filed a complaint consisting of six causes of action: (1) breach of a law partnership contract, (2) conversion of partnership assets, (3) fraud, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, (5) declaratory relief, and (6) an accounting of the partnership business.

The complaint alleged that on January 1, 2005, the parties had "entered into a written partnership agreement . . . for the purpose of carrying on the business of practicing law . . . ." Pursuant to the agreement, the parties "assumed" that appellant would purchase half of respondents' practice "by the end [of] 2009." Until the purchase price of $425,000 was paid in full, appellant would receive 17.5 percent and respondents would receive 32.5 percent of the practice's gross receipts. The remaining 50 percent of the gross receipts would "be held for the [practice's] operating expenses." After payment of the purchase price, respondents and appellant would each receive 25 percent of the gross receipts. The complaint further alleged that on August 1, 2005, seven months after the formation of the partnership, respondents "assumed sole possession and control of the [partnership's] business and assets . . . and thereafter controlled, operated, and conducted the partnership business to the exclusion of [appellant] and without making any accounting to [appellant] of the income or disbursements, or of the net profits or losses realized by the partnership." Respondents "breached the [partnership] contract by repudiating the existence of the partnership." The complaint requested damages, "a declaration of the rights and interests of [the parties] in and to the partnership business and assets," "a complete accounting of the partnership from January 1, 2005," and "a judgment in favor of [appellant] and against [respondents] for the amounts found to be due under such accounting." The causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud were tried to the jury. Appellant did not proceed on the causes of action for conversion and declaratory relief. Before the jury trial began, the court ruled that the jury would decide the issues of liability and damages in a single proceeding. It denied respondents' motion to bifurcate damages from liability. Appellant's counsel agreed that the equitable cause of action for a partnership accounting, "if still viable after the jury's verdict," would "be tried to the Court post[-]jury trial." The jury returned a special verdict in respondents' favor. It found that a partnership between the parties existed, but that respondents had not breached the