California Supreme And Appellate Court
Case Summaries
Contract Law
 

CONTRACT LAW
Contract Law Case Summaries

■ Davis v. Nadrich, No. B202868

INTRODUCTION

            Plaintiff and appellant Joseph Daniel Davis (Davis), an attorney, was a partner in a law firm with John C. Heubeck.  On appeal, Davis claims that defendant and respondent Jeff Ira Nadrich interfered with the Davis/Heubeck partnership agreement by referring cases to Heubeck, personally.  Davis appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of Nadrich and in favor of defendants and respondents Randal Neal Cohen (Cohen) and the law firm of Nadrich & Cohen, LLP.  We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            1.  Facts.[1]

            Davis’s law practice primarily focused on asbestos litigation.  He was in a law partnership named Davis & Thomas.  While that firm was winding down, Davis entered into a 1999 oral agreement with Heubeck.  Heubeck and Davis formed the law partnership of Davis & Heubeck to represent plaintiffs in asbestos-related or toxic tort litigation.  Davis and Heubeck did not agree to remain partners until the expiration of a definite term or the completion of a particular undertaking.  Each partner had the right to end the partnership and to begin the period of winding-up the firm.  The agreement provided that Davis was to be the trial attorney, receiving 60 percent of the profits.  The scope of the Davis & Heubeck partnership did not include the unfinished business from Davis & Thomas.  Eventually, Davis & Heubeck leased space at 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California.

            By 2003, the firm of Davis & Heubeck was no longer making any money.

Heubeck claimed that in early 2004 there was a decision to dissolve Davis & Heubeck.  Davis disputed that claim and stated that there was no dissolution decision until May 11, 2005.  In 2004, Heubeck did not notify the State Bar that he had begun to practice under his own name and he did not list his personal firm (the Law Offices of John C. Heubeck) on the directory at the building located on Santa Monica Boulevard.

            Heubeck met Nadrich sometime in mid-2004.  Nadrich wanted to refer asbestos and toxic tort cases to Heubeck, individually, and not to the Davis & Heubeck firm.  Based upon Nadrich’s opinion of Davis, Nadrich told Heubeck that he had no intention of referring any cases to Davis or to any firm with which Davis was associated.  Thereafter, Nadrich referred cases to Heubeck, individually, and not to the firm of Davis & Heubeck.

            Davis has never met nor spoken to Nadrich.  Neither Davis nor Davis & Heubeck was ever retained by any client to prosecute any case referred by Nadrich to Heubeck.  Neither Davis nor Davis & Heubeck has executed any retainer agreement for any case referred by Nadrich to Heubeck.  Neither Davis nor Davis & Heubeck was the attorney of record in any case referred by Nadrich to Heubeck.  Neither Davis nor Davis & Heubeck obtained written consent from any client to share attorney fees earned on the Nadrich referred cases.  Davis knew, and did not protest, that the Nadrich referred cases were being prosecuted by the Law Offices of John C. Heubeck.

            After Heubeck began to litigate cases referred to him from Nadrich, Heubeck remained in the same office space he shared with Davis.  Heubeck used Davis & Heubeck office personnel and facilities to prosecute the Nadrich referrals.  According to Davis, he was to receive a percentage of the Nadrich referred cases.

            On May 11, 2005, Heubeck discovered that Davis had taken a significant amount of money from a Davis & Heubeck account.  Heubeck confronted Davis, demanded the return of the money, and left the offices he had been sharing with Davis.  In May 2005, Heubeck notified Davis & Heubeck’s employees and clients that Davis & Heubeck was dissolving.

            Davis has never talked to Cohen.  The law firm of Nadrich & Cohen LLP is a limited liability partnership.  It was formed on January 1, 2005, and did not exist in the spring of 2004.  Cohen was not privy to any conversations between Heubeck and Nadrich regarding case referrals.  Cohen has no knowledge of the circumstances under which Nadrich referred cases to Heubeck and has no knowledge of the terms of such referrals.  The only reason Davis named Cohen as a defendant in this lawsuit was because Cohen was a partner with Nadrich, and Davis believes that Cohen has assets beyond those of the firm, Nadrich & Cohen.

■ Held:

In an action alleging intentional and negligent interference with a contractual relationship, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) no cause of action for negligent interference with contractual relations exists in California; and 2) plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact with regard to a possible cause of action for intentional interference with contract as he offered no evidence that there was an actual breach of his partnership contract, and thus, cannot prove a cause of action against defendant for interference with that contract.
Davis v. Nadrich -B202868-4/27/09 CA2/3
Davis v. Nadrich -B202868-4/27/09 CA2/3-PDF

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory  
Case Summaries Directory 
Contract Law Case Summaries Table of Contents