Appellant director sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) that granted summary judgment in favor of respondent entertainment studio. Appellant brought the action for tortious wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy against sex discrimination, breach of contract, and fraud.
Table of Contents
Overview
Appellant director brought action against respondent entertainment studio for tortious wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy against sex discrimination, breach of contract, and fraud. Summary judgment was granted in favor of respondent, and appellant sought review. In reversing the decision, the court held that a triable issue existed as to whether respondent breached its contract with appellant failing to evaluate appellant’s proposals on their merits. If respondent acted in bad faith categorically rejecting appellant’s work and refusing to work with her, irrespective of the merits of her proposals, such conduct was not beyond the reach of the law. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing obligated respondent to exercise its discretion honestly and in good faith. Testimony indicated that respondent expressed an absolute unwillingness to work with appellant, it could have reasonably been inferred that respondent never intended to give appellant’s proposals a good faith evaluation. Respondent’s payment of the guaranteed compensation under the agreement did not establish that respondent fulfilled its contractual obligation.
Outcome
The court reversed the decision that granted summary judgment in favor of respondent entertainment studio, holding triable issues of fact were present with respect to appellant director’s claims of breach of contract and fraud. The court ruled that the evidence presented inferred respondent breached the agreement refusing to consider appellant’s proposals in good faith, and the issue of fraudulent intent was one for the trier of fact. The litigants retained California class action attorney in their civil litigation matter.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff former employee sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of Sutter County (California), which sustained the demurrers to the complaint on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, without leave to amend, in an action against defendant executors, devisees and legatees, to specifically enforce an alleged contract between former employee and the deceased.
Overview
Plaintiff former employee of deceased filed an action against respondents, executors, devisees, and legatees of deceased, to specifically enforce an alleged contract between former employee of deceased and the deceased, which deceased obligated himself to bequeath to former employee his will a sum of money. Demurrers to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action were sustained, without leave to amend. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court held that specific performance could not be decreed notwithstanding the plaintiff being fully compensated at law. The court found that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to entitle former employee to any relief, legal or equitable. The court reasoned that he had not alleged a presentation of his claim to the executors and judge for allowance. The complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court found that no abuse of discretion had been show or suggested the record.
Outcome
The court affirmed the demurrer to plaintiff former employee’s complaint, without leave to amend, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
