Kahane v. Jansen
California Court of Appeal
2008 WL 5077628 (2008)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Attorney Dennis Kahane (plaintiff) prevailed in a lawsuit brought against him by Lynn Jansen (defendant). The basis of the lawsuit was that Kahane, acting as attorney for Alamo Orchards LLC (Alamo), owed a fiduciary duty to Jansen, who believed himself to be member-manager of Alamo. Kahane then brought a lawsuit against Jansen for malicious prosecution and sought compensation for reputational harm caused by Jansen’s unsuccessful lawsuit. The basis of the malicious-prosecution claim was that Jansen did not have probable cause to believe Kahane owed Jansen, as manager of Alamo, a fiduciary duty to disclose potential conflicts of interest. Kahane did have a potential conflict of interest as the attorney of one of the members of Alamo, Brent Tucker, whose company did business with Alamo. However, Jansen had received written consent from Alamo’s members holding a majority of Alamo’s membership interests, designating him as a managing member of the limited-liability company (LLC) in a borrowing-authorization document. This method of selecting a manager was specifically authorized by Alamo’s operating agreement. The borrowing authorization granted Jansen broad authority to act on behalf of Alamo. Jansen filed a special motion to strike Kahane’s claim, which the lower court granted. Kahane appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rivera, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
