Yates

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Before me are defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or, alternatively, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motions are DENIED.

The lone claim remaining against defendants alleges a state law claim for breach of fiduciary duty — a claim plaintiff describes in his opposition as “essentially a state law claim for churning.” The investment account that was allegedly churned by defendants is the same account that was the subject of a prior case adjudicated before me. On February 23, 2007, plaintiff acknowledged payment of $297,173.35, representing compensatory damages plus interest, as partial satisfaction of the judgment. See Yates v. GunnAllen Financial, et al., C05-1510 BZ, Civil Docket No. 190. The punitive damage award is on appeal.

Defendants argue that plaintiffs latest suit must be dismissed pursuant to the “single satisfaction” rule, which California follows. The narrow issue before me is whether California’s single satisfaction rule bars plaintiff from seeking punitive damages from these defendants based…