Court Opinion

ID: 9619143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:22:31.264542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:12.949371
License: Public Domain

Judge Horton
concurring in the result.
While I do not join in that portion of the majority opinion holding that “plaintiff, as a limited partner, had no standing to bring an individual, non-derivative action against the general partner of the limited partnership,” I concur in the result reached by the majority.
*512This case is not before us on a motion to dismiss plaintiffs claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, but is an appeal from a lengthy bench trial in which numerous exhibits were entered. Although the able trial court states in its judgment that the plaintiffs claims based on breach of fiduciary duty should have been brought as derivative actions, the trial court heard voluminous testimony and found as a fact that plaintiffs “serious claims of fraud, attempts by Marshall to squeeze Jackson out, obtain partnership assets for himself or otherwise wrongfully deprive Jackson of his interest in the partnerships are not supported by any credible evidence,” including plaintiffs own testimony. Thus, it appears that the trial court permitted plaintiff to offer evidence on his direct, non-derivative claims based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, but found after weighing all the evidence that plaintiff had not offered any believable evidence which supported his claims.
On this record, I do not believe we need to reach the issue of plaintiffs right to maintain his action for breach of fiduciary duty as a direct, non-derivative action, nor do we need to discuss the sufficiency of the allegations of plaintiffs complaint. I concur in the result reached by the majority as to plaintiffs claims based on an alleged breach of fiduciary duty by defendants, and concur fully as to plaintiffs other claims for relief.