Opinion ID: 489574
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dismissal of State Claims on Merits

Text: 21 We now consider the district court's dismissal of the portion of Del Madera's state claims for unfair competition and unjust richment pertaining to the alleged misappropriation of time and effort spent in obtaining approval of the subdivision. In its order dismissing these claims, the district court concluded: The misappropriation action will not lie here. Not necessarily because it's preempted but because it's improper on its own terms. (Reporter's Transcript at 5-34.) We agree. 22
23 Del Madera's unfair competition claim alleging misappropriation of time and effort expended to obtain approval of the subdivision is predicated upon an alleged breach of a fiduciary duty. Martha McCart was a member of McCart Associates which was formerly part of the Del Madera joint venture. Del Madera contends that when the defendants obtained from McCart documents and information she acquired while McCart Associates was a joint venturer in the Del Madera joint venture, they breached a fiduciary duty owed to Del Madera. 24 Defendants, however, were never in a fiduciary relationship with Del Madera. McCart may have been, but she is not a party to this action. Since the defendants were not in a fiduciary relationship with Del Madera, they did not breach a fiduciary duty owed to Del Madera. 25
26 Del Madera contends that the defendants received the benefit of Del Madera's services rendered in the pursuit of subdivision approval, and the defendants should pay for these services. 27 Under California law, to entitle a plaintiff to recover for services performed, the circumstances must be such as to warrant the inference that it was the expectation of both parties during the time the services were rendered that the compensation should be made. 1 B. Witkin, Summary of California Law, Contracts Sec. 50, at 60-61 (8th ed. 1973 & Supp.1984) (emphasis in original). There was no relationship between Del Madera and the defendants to justify such an expectation. Del Madera's reliance upon Kossian v. American National Insurance Co., 254 Cal.App.2d 647, 62 Cal.Rptr. 225 (1967) is misplaced. In Kossian, the defendant had received the benefit of the plaintiff's labor in removing debris from fire-damaged property. Although the plaintiff had removed the debris, the defendant recovered part of this cost of removal from an insurance company. The California Court of Appeal directed the trial court to determine how much money the defendant had recovered from the insurance company for work performed by the plaintiff and to remit that portion of the recovery to the plaintiff. There was no preexisting relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The court mentioned unjust enrichment as a basis for compensating the plaintiff, but the decision was predicated upon an implied-in-law obligation imposed because good conscience dictates that under the circumstances the person benefited should make reimbursement. 254 Cal.App.2d at 650, 62 Cal.Rptr. at 227. We agree with the trial court that the decision in Kossian is nothing more or less, when you read the case, than the court applying equity under the most unusual circumstances. (Reporter's Transcript 4-35).