 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
AMP Enterprises v. Price Pfister11/19/2003
Introduction
After Price Pfister, Inc., terminated its relationships with its independent sales representatives and transitioned to an employee-based sales force, the former independent sales representatives sued for fraud and violation of the Unfair Competition Act. Plaintiffs alleged that, for a four-year period preceding the terminations of their relationships, Price Pfister intentionally concealed its plan to transition to an employee-based sales force. Plaintiffs also alleged that in reliance on Price Pfister's misrepresentations regarding the security of their positions as independent sales representatives, plaintiffs incurred damages.
Based solely on the paucity of plaintiffs' responses to interrogatories and document requests, Price Pfister moved for summary adjudication of plaintiffs' fraud claim on the ground plaintiffs could not establish the necessary element of damage. Plaintiffs opposed the motions with a declaration from an economics/accounting expert witness, as well as declarations from each plaintiff. The trial court granted the motions for summary adjudication of plaintiffs' fraud claim. Plaintiffs then dismissed their remaining claim, and judgment was entered.
On appeal, plaintiffs argue Price Pfister's reliance on plaintiffs' discovery responses did not shift the burden of production to plaintiffs. We disagree and affirm the judgment. Factually devoid discovery responses can shift to the nonmoving party the burden of producing admissible evidence of a triable issue of material fact, and that happened here. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 845, 849; Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 78-79; Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590.)
Plaintiffs also argue they met their burden in opposing the motions for summary adjudication by offering the declarations of the economics/accounting expert witness and of plaintiffs' own representatives. We conclude the trial court properly excluded the expert's declaration, which lacked any foundation. Plaintiffs' own declarations were speculative. The trial court did not err in determining plaintiffs had failed to raise a triable issue of material fact, and in granting the motions for summary adjudication.
Plaintiffs also argue the trial court erred in denying their motion for reconsideration of the order granting the motions for summary adjudication. The new evidence offered by plaintiffs in support of their motion for reconsideration was an amended declaration of their expert witness. That declaration referenced documents reflecting plaintiffs' commissions and provided additional information regarding the methodology she used to reach her conclusions of the damages plaintiffs allegedly suffered. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining plaintiffs had failed to explain why they did not produce this evidence in opposition to the motions for summary adjudication (McPherson v. City of Manhattan Beach (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1265), and therefore properly denied the motion for reconsideration.
Finally, plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in issuing a protective order preventing plaintiffs from taking the deposition of the chief executive officer of Price Pfister's parent company. Because we affirm the judgment, we need not reach this issue.
Facts and Proceedings in the Trial Court
Plaintiffs were independent sales representatives for defendant Price Pfister, a faucet manufacturer. The Black & Decker Corporation is the corporate parent of Price Pfister. (We refer to Price Pfister and Black & Decker collectivel
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|