Murphy v. BDO Seidman
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 12/24/03 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT MICHAEL MURPHY et al., B154584 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 222929) v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND ORDER FOR PETITION FOR REHEARING BDO SEIDMAN et al., Defendants and Respondents. [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT:* GOOD CAUSE appearing the opinion filed in the above entitled matter on November 24, 2003, is modified as follows: 1. Page 8, last full paragraph, originally reads: Bily can thus be briefly summarized as follows: (1) ordinary negligence--no duty to third parties; (2) negligent misrepresentation--duty to third parties who with substantial certainty could be foreseen to rely on the misrepresentation; and (3) intentional misrepresentation--duty to third parties who could be reasonably foreseen to rely on the misrepresentation. ___________________________________________________________ * COOPER, P.J. RUBIN, J. BOLAND, J. Change to: Bily can thus be briefly summarized as follows: (1) ordinary negligence--no duty to third parties; (2) negligent misrepresentation--duty to third parties who would be known with substantial certainty to rely on the misrepresentation; and (3) intentional misrepresentation--duty to third parties who could be reasonably foreseen to rely on the misrepresentation. 2. Page 10, first full paragraph, first sentence, originally reads: Such an allegation, and similar allegations targeted at Logan, satisfy Bily s criteria for negligent misrepresentation: respondents could with substantial certainty foresee that potential investors such as appellants would rely on the misstatements. (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 413-414.) Change to: Such an allegation, and similar allegations targeted at Logan, satisfy Bily s criteria for negligent misrepresentation: respondents knew with substantial certainty that potential investors such as appellants would rely on the misstatements. (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 413-414.) 3. Page 18, last paragraph, third sentence originally read: Under Bily, respondents are liable for (1) negligent misrepresentation if they knew it was substantially likely that appellants would receive the misstatements and (2) intentional misrepresentation if it was reasonably foreseeable appellants would receive the statements. 2 Change to: Under Bily, respondents are liable for (1) negligent misrepresentation if they knew it was substantially certain that appellants would receive the misstatements and (2) intentional misrepresentation if it was reasonably foreseeable appellants would receive the statements. [end of modifications] The modifications effect no change in the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
