Dounel v. Duel CA4/3

Filed 4/23/21 Dounel v. Duel 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

AMIR DOUNEL,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G058116

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00632134)

EBRAHIM DUEL et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Derek W. Hunt, Judge. Reversed. Lyle R. Mink for Plaintiff and Appellant. Berokim & Duel and Kousha Berokim for Defendants and Respondents. * * *

Plaintiff Amir Dounel appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants Ebrahim Duel, Helda Duel, David Duel, Duel Family Limited Partnership and 3211 East Mandeville, LLC (collectively Duel). Dounel had asserted legal and equitable claims against Duel, but the trial court dismissed the legal claims for failure to bring them to trial within five years. Following a court trial on the equitable claims, the court found in favor of Duel. Dounel contends the judgment must be reversed because the trial court erred in denying him his constitutional right to a jury trial. As explained below, we conclude the trial court erred in dismissing Dounel’s legal claims. We also conclude a full reversal is warranted because the equitable claims are factually intertwined with the legal claims and Dounel was denied an opportunity to preserve his right to a jury trial. Accordingly, we reverse.

I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 21, 2013, Dounel filed a complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of oral contract, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) dissolution of partnership, and (4) partition of real property. The complaint alleged Dounel and Duel entered into an oral partnership agreement to own and operate a business related to two real properties. Under the agreement, Dounel would have a one-quarter interest in one property and a one-third interest in the other. Duel would rent the properties and pay Dounel his share of the net profits. The complaint alleged Duel breached the partnership agreement and breached his fiduciary duty as a partner by failing to pay Dounel or to provide an accounting. It also asserted the partnership should be dissolved because Duel’s breaches made it “not reasonably practical to carry on the business in partnership.” As to the claim for partition of real properties, the complaint alleged Dounel became a co-owner in the properties via two grant deeds executed by Duel, which granted Dounel an interest in the properties in the same proportion as the partnership