Haight, Brown & Bonesteel v. Superior Court
Opinion
Opinion
Fukuto, J.
Petitioner, Haight, Brown & Bonesteel (HBB), seeks a writ of mandate after the trial court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of real parties in interest (DCC partners).
Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel was a law partnership with its principal office in Santa Monica, California, and a branch office in Santa Ana, California. In March of 1988, seven of the partners departed the firm, established the law partnership of Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (DCC), and opened an office in Santa Monica, California.
HBB filed a four-count complaint, three counts of which were directed against the DCC partners. In the first count HBB sought, inter alia, a declaration of rights and duties of the DCC and HBB partners under paragraphs (13)(c)(l) and (13)(c)(4) of the 1987 partnership agreement in existence at the time the DCC partners departed the Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel law firm.
Paragraph (13)(c)(l) provides as follows:
Paragraph (13)(c)(4) provides as follows:
Also contained within paragraph 13 is the following language: “It is the intent of the Partnership in this Section 13(c) to comply with and take advantage of the provisions of California…