Cano

Cano v. Glover

Good Law
143 Cal. App. 4th 326·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1482·2006 Daily Journal DAR 13001·48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9050
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 2006B187267California1,596 words

Opinion

Opinion

Yegan, J.

Ronald Glover (defendant) appeals from an order denying his motion for dismissal with prejudice. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 581d, 581, subd. (f)(2).) He brought the motion after a demurrer was sustained and Luis Cano (plaintiff) did not name him in the fourth amended complaint. The trial court dismissed the action as to defendant, but without prejudice. The court also denied his motion for costs and attorney’s fees on the ground that the motions were “premature.” We reverse.

Procedural History

On July 25, 2004, plaintiff sued William Tucker and defendant for breach of contract, common counts, and fraud after investing in L & H Concrete, Inc. Plaintiff claimed that Tucker and defendant breached a June 2001 contract to share profits.

As to plaintiff’s first, second and third amended complaints on the contract and common counts causes of action, the trial court sustained demurrers with leave to amend. Defendant’s demurrer to a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty was also sustained with leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint but did not name defendant. Defendant moved for dismissal and requested costs and attorney fees. (§581, subd. (f)(2).)…

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.