Hobbs

Hobbs v. Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc.

Bad Law
164 Cal. App. 3d 174·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1589·210 Cal. Rptr. 387
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 1985B003557California10,203 words

Opinion

Opinion

Arabian, J.

Introduction

Plaintiff and respondent Mittie F. Hobbs, individually, and Mittie F. Hobbs, trustee of that trust agreement dated December 23, 1974 (Mrs. Hobbs), was awarded $96,000 in compensatory damages against defendants and appellants Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Incorporated and Alan Ravenscroft (individually, Bateman Eichler and Ravenscroft and, collectively, appellants) and $220,000 in punitive damages against Bateman Eichler by a jury which determined that appellants had breached their fiduciary duties to Mrs. Hobbs. Mrs. Hobbs showed that appellants had made unsuitable investments for her, had “churned” her account, had made transactions without obtaining her permission and had failed to advise her of substantial losses in her account. The trial court denied appellants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for new trial and entered judgment on the verdicts. Appellants appealed. We affirm the judgment and orders of the trial court.

Procedural Facts

The original complaint in this action was filed on June 29, 1981. The first amended complaint alleged causes of action for fraud, negligence, fraudulent manipulation of securities, restitution and…

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.