PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro

Good Law
150 Cal. App. 4th 384·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 667·58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 516·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4776
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2007B189856California5,136 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mosk, J.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs PCO, Inc., and Personal Choice Opportunities, by and through their duly appointed receiver, Barry A,. Fisher (plaintiffs), filed an action against Robert L. Shapiro (Shapiro) and his law firm, Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP (Christensen Firm), alleging that Shapiro improperly obtained monies that belonged to the receivership. Shapiro, a named partner in the Christensen Firm, was the attorney for David W. Laing (Laing), who was arrested and ultimately convicted for engaging in fraudulent activities with PCO, Inc., and Personal Choice Opportunities (collectively PCO).

The trial court granted the Christensen Firm’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Christensen Firm cannot be held vicariously liable for Shapiro’s alléged acts. We reverse the summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs have raised triable issues of fact with respect to whether Shapiro committed his alleged acts within the scope of his authority as a partner of the Christensen Firm. We affirm, however, the trial court’s order granting summary adjudication in favor of the Christensen Firm on plaintiffs’ causes of action for conversion 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.