Murphy Cooke Kobrick

Attorneys

CONTACT ONE OF OUR OFFICES TODAY: San Mateo: (650) 204-0203 Los Angeles: (424) 238-4501
logo
Menu Button
  • Home
  • Our Firm
  • LAWYERS
    • Patrick T. Murphy
    • Christopher C. Cooke
    • Kathryn R. Coburn
    • Steven R. Ruth
  • AREAS OF PRACTICE
    • Government Enforcement Defense
    • Complex Litigation and Trial
    • Internal Investigations
    • Health Law
    • Information Security
  • NEWS
  • CONTACT
    • San Mateo
    • Los Angeles

Nanny State vs. The Invisible Hand

February 21, 2020 By Kathryn R. Coburn

Kathryn Coburn will be speaking at the RSA Conference on February 26, 2020 at the Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco, on incentivizing cybersecurity in the healthcare industry. For more information, see https://www.rsaconference.com/

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Steven Ruth Obtains Summary Judgment on Claims for Investor Liablity

July 24, 2016 By Steven R. Ruth

Since 2012, Steven Ruth has been representing clients in a dispute arising out of one client’s employment at and efforts to purchase a restaurant. Three of these clients were brought in as cross-defendants on the eve of the original trial date. One of these clients successfully moved to quash service of summons, but the other two remained as parties to the action. Cross-complainant asserted that they were liable as parties to  alter egos of, investors in, or partners or joint venturers with the corporate cross-defendant.

We moved for summary judgment on behalf of the two remaining late-added cross-defendants. We also moved for summary adjudication on the claim for declaratory relief as to the other cross-defendants on the grounds that cross-complainant sought relief for an existing breach, not to obtain prospective relief.

The Court recently granted our motion in its entirety.  The Court found that

  • There was no evidence that the late-added parties were parties to the subject agreements.
  • There was no evidence that the late-added parties owned or controlled the corporate cross-defendant.
  • There was no evidence of a partnership or joint venture.
  • Cross-complainant sought relief for an existing breach, not to obtain prospective relief.

The Court’s order leaves cross-complainant with claims only for breach of contract and an accounting against the two remaining cross-defendants.

Filed Under: NEWS, Uncategorized Tagged With: Alter Ego, Breach of Contract, Business Litigation, Complex Litigation and Trial, Declaratory Relief, Investor, Joint Venturer, Partnership, Summary Judgment

AREAS OF PRACTICE

  • Government Enforcement Defense
  • Complex Litigation and Trial
  • Internal Investigations
  • Health Law
  • Information Security

Categories

  • NEWS
  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
  • Uncategorized

OUR AREAS OF PRACTICE

©2016-2020 MURPHY COOKE KOBRICK LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED · DISCLAIMER · PRIVACY POLICY