Anne Rodriguez et al vs State Farm General Insurance Company

"Ambrecht is hereby admitted to the Partnership as an income Partner only and not as a Partner. As an Income Partner, Ambrecht is only entitled to the benefits and bound by the obligations of Partnership expressly set forth in this Amendment and nothing contained in the Agreement shall otherwise apply to an Income Partner except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Amendment." (Agreement, P. 3.) "For so long as Ambrecht and associated of the Partnership providing work on Ambrecht client matters, collectively bill 150 hours each month, Ambrecht will receive and income distribution of $7,500-$10,000 per month based upon the revenues received by the Partnership from such month's work.

Client billing shall adhere to all rules and guidelines of the Partnership as modified from time to time." (Agreement, P. 4.) By way of its separate statement of undisputed material facts (UMFs), DT Law states, among other things: "On August 1, 2021, Ambrecht signed an AMENDMENT TO LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT [Contract] with DT Law." (UMF No. 1.) This fact is undisputed. "The DT Law billing procedures were: timekeepers inputted their time into the DT Law billing program; pre-bills were generated monthly; timekeepers would review/revise the prebills; office manager Renee Castelo would review the prebills with the originating/responsible attorney; after review and authorization by the responsible attorney final bills would be sent to the clients." (UMF No. 8.)

Ambrecht does not dispute that this describes the general billing workflow used during his time with DT Law. However, Ambrecht argues that by the time he stopped approving pre-bills, DT Law had already been collecting his client's payments and failing to account for or remit hundreds of thousands of dollars owed to him for over a year. He also argues, and declares, that terms of the Amendment, regarding compensation, were incorrect and that DePaco promised to correct the Amendment. Ambrecht also argues and declares that beginning in the Fall of 2022, he became aware that DT Law was impermissibly collecting substantial fees from Ambrecht's clients and not remitting those fees to him, as required by agreement.

At the very least, there is a disputed issue as to whether or not Ambrecht was justified, and excused, from approving the pre-bills due to actions, or inactions, of DT Law. The court understands that DT Law has provided interrogatory responses wherein Ambrecht stated "No" to the question, "Was performance of any agreement alleged in the pleadings excused?". (Interrogatory No. 50.3.) However, throughout the rest of the responses, Ambrecht alleges that DT Law breached the agreement by failing to pay him monies owed. (see e.g.

Interrogatory No. 50.2.) Ambrecht's admission that he was paid $10,000 per month for his entire tenure at DT Law is not dispositive. There are questions regarding whether DT Law had other obligations by way of contract (either written or oral) that it failed to perform. There are clearly triable issues as to whether DT Law fully performed under the contract and whether Ambrecht was excused from performing under the contract. Further, and in the alternative, there are triable issues regarding the nature, amount, and even the existence of damages. "A determination of liability alone does not completely dispose of the cause of action." (Paramount Petroleum Corp. v.

Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 242-243.) "We conclude that Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1), does not permit summary adjudication of a single item of compensatory damage which does not dispose of an entire cause of action. The trial court properly denied the motion for summary adjudication on this basis." (DeCastro West Chodorow & Burns, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 410, 422.) The court will deny the motion for summary adjudication because there are unresolved issues of damages. (See Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (f)(1).) Summary adjudication would not be appropriate under the present circumstances and will be denied. DT Law's objection to paragraph 11, lines 5-28 of the Ambrecht declaration is overruled. DT Law is conflating the issue of excuse for non-performance with breach of an independent obligation.

Tentative Ruling: Anne Rodriguez et al vs State Farm General Insurance Company Tentative Ruling: Anne Rodriguez et al vs State Farm General Insurance Company Case Number