Douglas G. Christie

This decision addresses two related appeals.

In the main appeal (C70874), Physicians’ Dialysis Center Inc. (PDC), and Drs.

George Wu and Gordon Wong appealed a trial judgment that found them unjustly enriched at the expense of Drs.

Perkins and Boll, and liable for general and punitive damages due to abuse of trust and breach of fiduciary duty.

The appellants argued errors in the interpretation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning compensation for clinic space and services, and that the claims were statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on unjust enrichment, contract interpretation (clarifying payments were for overhead, not extra billing), and the application of the limitations period.

In the second appeal (COA-22-CV-0392), Dr. Donald Kim appealed the denial of his share in interpleaded funds, and this appeal was granted.

The applicants, Dr. David Perkins and Dr. Philip Boll, sought court approval of a partial settlement agreement (Pierringer agreement) with Dr. Arturo Wadgymar and Dr. Donald Kim.

The non-settling parties, Physicians’ Dialysis Centre Inc., Dr. George Wu, and Dr. Gordon K. T. Wong, neither consented to nor opposed the motion.

The court, having served as case management judge and reviewed the material, found that the agreement did not cause unfairness or prejudice to the non-settling parties and was in the interests of justice.

The court approved the agreement, confirming it does not alter the adversarial position of the parties or impair the applicants' ability to pursue claims against the non-settling parties.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment concerning a business purchase agreement that was terminated before completion.

The trial judge found that a $100,000 deposit paid by the appellant toward a $500,000 purchase price was to be retained by the respondent pursuant to a termination agreement entered into by the parties.

The trial judge found no legal fault on either side and concluded that the parties' intention in the termination agreement was that the deposit remain with the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's interpretation and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff brought an action against a developer for breach of a partnership agreement and included several co-owners of the development project as defendants, alleging they were trustees de son tort who knowingly received trust funds.

The co-owner defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them.

The court found no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the moving defendants, and no evidence that they knowingly assisted in a breach of trust or received more than their proportionate share of profits.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action against the moving defendants was dismissed.