Goldman

Goldman v. KPMG, LLP

Bad Law
173 Cal. App. 4th 209·92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 534
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 22, 2009B195740California9,999 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rubin, J.

SUMMARY

The plaintiffs in two lawsuits, consolidated on appeal, seek millions of dollars in damages in connection with allegedly fraudulent tax shelter schemes developed, marketed and implemented by their former accountants, lawyers and investment advisers. In one of the tax shelter schemes, a step in the process included the formation of limited liability companies in which plaintiffs and their investment advisers became members. The limited liability companies had standard operating agreements containing broad arbitration clauses. When plaintiffs sued the accountants, lawyers and investment advisers, the accountants and lawyers, who were not parties to the operating agreements, sought an order compelling arbitration. Relying on the doctrine of equitable estoppel, they argued that plaintiffs, as signatories to an arbitration agreement with the investment advisors, should be equitably estopped from asserting the right they otherwise would have had to pursue their claims against the accountants and lawyers in court.

The trial court in each case denied the motions to compel arbitration (in one case, in part only), and the accountants and lawyers appealed. We conclude the…

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.