Richert v. Marinaro
Filed 5/1/06 Richert v. Marinaro CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
| WILLIAM RICHERT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD MARINARO, Defendant and Appellant.
| B179812 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC278360)
|
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David L. Minning, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Horvitz & Levy, John A. Taylor, Jr., Frederic D. Cohen; Hanger, Levine & Steinberg, Robert E. Levine and Josephine N. Baurac for Defendant and Appellant.
Johnson & Rishwain, Neville L. Johnson, Brian A. Rishwain and James T. Ryan for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________
Defendant and appellant Ronald Marinaro appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in favor of plaintiff and respondent William Richert in this action for damages based on Marinaro's appropriation of business opportunities. Marinaro contends: (1) Richert should have listed his soybean roasting formula as an asset in his bankruptcy proceedings, and therefore, only the bankruptcy trustee has standing to pursue claims based on Marinaro's use of the formula; and (2) the jury's award of compensatory damages was improperly based on a valuation of Marinaro's competing business. We conclude Richert has standing, but we reverse the damages awarded in favor of Richert against Marinaro in excess of $586,000 for a limited retrial of the issues of lost profits and punitive damages.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Richert's Experience with â€
