Cohen

Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman v. Cohen

Good Law
191 Cal. App. 3d 1035·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1702·237 Cal. Rptr. 14
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 8, 1987Docket Nos. B001373, B014209, B023085California9,454 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

In Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman v. Cohen (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 200 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 180 ] (hereafter RMS I), we considered the obligations of dissolving partners of a partnership at will to the other partners for carrying on business that had been an asset of the partnership. We concluded that under the facts of the case as presented, the dissolving partners owed a fiduciary duty to the former partners with respect to such business. We also held that this duty is not dependent upon whether the client had retained the dissolving partners before or after the dissolution. In either case, the work retained its character as “unfinished business” of the dissolved partnership.

RMS I reached this court essentially without trial; orders granting motions for partial summary judgment, judgment on the pleadings, and nonsuit had foreclosed the plaintiffs’ theories of recovery. Finding these rulings to be erroneous, we reversed for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.

We now consider the several adjudications made in this complex litigation after the trial court rulings that were the basis of the RMS I decision. These are presented to us by appeals from three separate trial…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.