Pavicich v. Santucci

In Pavicich v. Santucci (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 382, the Sixth District affirmed the trial court's order overruling the demurrer of attorney Anthony Santucci to the complaint of Andrew Pavicich which alleged a conspiracy between Santucci and joint venturers in a brew pub project to conceal the claims of fraud and threats of litigation made by former joint venturers. Santucci unsuccessfully argued that the complaint did not comply with the requirements of section 1714.10. The Sixth District concluded that the complaint fell within the exception of part 1 of section 1714.10, subdivision (c), because Santucci had a duty to Pavicich to abstain from injuring Pavicich through express misrepresentation, and that Santucci violated this duty by representing that the former joint venturers had executed a legally binding release agreement. Santucci's duty did not arise out of "'a confidential relation between the parties or other special circumstances that require disclosure,'" but rather out of the principle that "'where one does speak he must speak the whole truth to the end that he does not conceal any facts which materially qualify those stated. One who is asked for or volunteers information must be truthful, and the telling of a half-truth calculated to deceive is fraud.'" ( Pavicich v. Santucci, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 398.) The court also held that Santucci violated his fiduciary duty to the corporation and limited partnership by ignoring the claims of threatened litigation and trying to conceal them from potential investors.