Goldberg v. Stelmach CA2/3

Filed 6/22/16 Goldberg v. Stelmach CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

SHLOMO GOLDBERG, B250524

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC075563) v.

YUVAL STELMACH et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Russell Kussman, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Ronald Richards & Associates, Ronald N. Richards and Nicholas A. Bravo for Defendants and Appellants. Law Offices of Leon Small and Leon Small for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________________________

Plaintiff and respondent Shlomo Goldberg sued defendants and appellants Yuval Stelmach, Rem LLC, and Tul Investments, Inc. (collectively, the Stelmach defendants) for breach of fiduciary duty. After finding that the action was one in equity for which there was no constitutional right to a jury trial, the court held a bench trial and found in Goldberg’s favor. Defendants appeal, contending they were denied their constitutional right to a jury trial. We reject that contention and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Lea and Shlomo Goldberg invested in various business ventures with their daughter, Taly Stelmach, and her husband, Yuval Stelmach. Problems in the Goldbergs’ marriage created problems in the “family enterprise,” culminating in Shlomo Goldberg suing the Stelmachs and various business entities in 2003. (Goldberg v. Stelmach (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2006, No. LC066042) (Goldberg I.).) In that prior suit, Goldberg contended that investments belonged to him, to the exclusion of his wife. Goldberg I rejected that contention and held that Goldberg and Lea each had a one-half interest in their investments with the Stelmachs. Thus, for example, the Goldbergs had a 15 percent interest in Tul Investments, which owned a property in Glendora. The Goldbergs’ 15 percent interest from the sale of the Glendora property, $418,779, was therefore to be divided equally between the Goldbergs. But, after Goldberg I concluded, Sholmo Goldberg filed this lawsuit in August 2006. He alleged, for example, that the Stelmach defendants violated their fiduciary duties by failing to distribute Goldberg’s interest to him. For reasons irrelevant to this appeal, demurrers were sustained without leave to amend, but this court reversed that judgment in a nonpublished opinion. (Goldberg v. Stelmach (Oct. 2, 2008, B199830).) On remand, Goldberg filed, in December 2008, the operative third amended complaint, which alleged a single cause of action for breach of fiduciary duties. According to that pleading, Goldberg “began a course of investments” with Stelmach in “various real property ventures” in Los Angeles. For each venture, a new partnership or