Levinson v. Sadovsky CA2/8

Filed 8/31/16 Levinson v. Sadovsky CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

LEONARD LEVINSON, B261012

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC512391) v.

IRINA SADOVSKY,

Defendant,

DAN SADOVSKY,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark Mooney, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part. Treyzon & Associates, Federico Castelán Sayre, Boris Treyzon and Yolanda M. Medina for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, John Barber, Jeffry A. Miller, Arezoo Jamshidi for Defendants and Respondents Dan Sadovsky and Kazak-Mars, Inc. The Kaufman Law Firm and Martin J. Kaufman for Defendants and Respondents Dan Sadovsky, Kazak-Mars, Inc., and Optimas B-Sol, Inc.

******

Plaintiff and appellant Leonard Levinson was a shareholder in Five Star Rx, Inc. (5-Star), a pharmacy in Ventura. He sued the pharmacist and majority shareholder Irina Sadovsky, her husband Dan Sadovsky, and Dan’s companies—Kazak-Mars, Inc. (Kazak- Mars) and Optimas B-Sol, Inc. (Optimas).1 Following a series of demurrers, the trial court dismissed Dan and his companies but allowed the suit to go forward as to Irina. This appeal is from the judgment of dismissal of Dan and his companies. In this appeal, Levinson ignores the one final judgment rule—a fundamental rule of appellate practice. (In re Baycol Cases I & II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 756.) Because no final judgment has been entered against Irina, we do not consider Levinson’s arguments related to her. We conclude that Levinson stated a cause of action against Dan and Kazak-Mars for conversion and reverse the judgment of dismissal as to them. We affirm the judgment of dismissal as to Optimas. FACTS AND PROCEDURE In his second amended complaint, Levinson alleged causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, conversion, violations of Corporations Code section 1601 and 1603, and declaratory relief. The trial court sustained the demurrers to all but the first two causes of action. It entered a judgment dismissing Dan, Kazak-Mars, and Optimas.2 Litigation against Irina continues. According to the second amended complaint, Irina owned 55 percent of 5-Star’s stock, and Levinson owned the remaining 45 percent. Levinson was a director of 5-Star. Irina was the sole registered pharmacist working for 5-Star. Dan was married to Irina. Dan was not an officer or shareholder of 5-Star. Dan owned 100 percent of Kazak-Mars.