La Caze v. Selleck
Filed 2/5/07 La Caze v. Selleck CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
NORMAN LA CAZE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DANIEL F. SELLECK et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B186111 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC309091) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William F. Highberger, Judge. Affirmed.
Freeman, Freeman & Smiley, Gregory M. Bordo and Jared A. Barry for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Richard S. Conn and Cheryl A. Orr for Defendants and Respondents.
_______________________
Norman La Caze sued Daniel Selleck and Selleck Development Group, Inc. (SDG) for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200), an accounting, and a constructive trust. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Selleck and SDG. La Caze contends on appeal that the trial court should not have summarily adjudicated his causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, accounting, and constructive trust. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
La Caze, a real estate developer doing business under the name La Caze Development Company (LDC), hired Selleck in approximately 1984. Selleck was employed by La Caze/LDC until March 1991, when he and La Caze entered into an agreement providing that Selleck would work as an independent contractor. That agreement terminated in December 1992. Selleck founded SDG in 1997.
After the termination of their agreement, La Caze learned from the attorney he and Selleck shared that Selleck had been engaged in other real estate/development deals while working with La Caze. La Caze sued Selleck and SDG, alleging, inter alia, that while Selleck was an employee of LDC, he pursued real estate and development opportunities for himself, depriving La Caze of business opportunities and the resulting profits.
Selleck and SDG moved for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of issues. The trial court granted summary judgment on two grounds: first, that Selleck's allegedly wrongful conduct did not constitute a breach of contract or duty; and second, that the statute of limitations had run on all La Caze's claims. La Caze appeals.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, La Caze contends only that his causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, accounting, and constructive trust should have survived the motion for summary judgment. As the unfair competition, accounting, and constructive trust claims all rest on the viability of the fiduciary duty cause of action, we review the trial court's ruling on that claim.
A trial court properly grants summary judgment when no triable issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) On appeal from a summary judgment, we make â€
