 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Patton v. Strabala1/30/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
In this action by plaintiffs and appellants Gerald Fitch and Robert Patton for damages for inducing breach of contract, wrongful interference with contractual relations, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and intentional infliction of emotional distress, non-suit was granted in favor of defendants and respondents Strabala, Ramirez & Associates, an accounting firm and its former employee, Henry Mendoza (collectively SRA). Fitch and Patton worked at Startronix International and Startronix Incorporated (collectively Startronix) respectively, in financial management positions, holding five-year employment contracts which were terminated early by Startronix. Before they were fired, SRA was brought in as the new auditor for Startronix, replacing another firm, BDO Seidman (BDO) (not a party to the action), who quit amid doubts about the ability of its client Startronix to prepare reliable financial statements. In their complaint as amended, Fitch and Patton alleged SRA required Startronix to fire them as a condition of performing the audit, thereby causing their termination.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Fitch and Patton (sometimes collectively plaintiffs) originally filed this complaint against Startronix and its president, Greg Gilbert, for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and termination in violation of public policy. The third amended complaint added SRA as a defendant and alleged against it four causes of action: inducing breach of contract, wrongful interference with contractual relations, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
One week before trial, Fitch and Patton dismissed defendants Startronix and Gilbert and related causes of action. As against remaining defendants SRA, Fitch and Patton presented their cases together, and the same defense counsel represented Mendoza and Strabala, Ramirez & Associates. After Fitch and Patton presented their evidence at a jury trial, SRA moved for non-suit. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 581c, subd. (a).) The court granted the motion. Fitch and Patton appealed.
DISCUSSION
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS
We review the grant of non-suit by examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. (Carson v. Facilities Development Co. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 830, 839.) In interpreting the evidence, all presumptions, inferences and doubts must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff. (Ibid.) The court may affirm the judgment if the plaintiff's proof "raises nothing more than speculation, suspicion, or conjecture[;] reversal is warranted if there is `some substance to plaintiff's evidence upon which reasonable minds could differ.' [Citation.]" (Carson, supra, at p. 839.) Further, the reviewing court only considers the grounds stated by the defendant for the motion. (Ibid.) In addition, if the trial court's exclusion of the plaintiff's evidence was prejudicial error and it is determined on review that the evidence would have supported a plaintiff's verdict, a judgment of non-suit is reversible. (Lawless v. Calaway (1944) 24 Cal.2d 81, 88.)
II. FACTS SHOWN AT TRIAL
Startronix Inc. was a subsidiary of Startronix International, an electronics and communications company, and Fitch, Patton, Gilbert and Jame
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|