Plaintiff salesperson sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant salesperson in an action for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, and unfair competition.
Nakase Law Firm answers how to sue employer
Overview
Plaintiff salesperson brought an action for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, and unfair competition. The trial court granted defendant salesperson’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant had previously brought an action in federal court that claimed plaintiff violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1051 et seq., and for unfair competition that was dismissed with prejudice. The trial court found that plaintiff’s claim was a compulsory counterclaim of the previous action and held that plaintiff’s claim was barred by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 426.30. On review the court found that the claims of plaintiff and defendant involved common issues of law and fact. The court found that plaintiff’s answer to defendant’s complaint in federal court concerned the same actions that were the same as those which were the basis of plaintiff’s complaint in the trial court. The court held that the overlap of issues satisfied the transaction or occurrence test and created ancillary jurisdiction. The court held that the waiver provision of § 426.30 was mandatory and affirmed summary judgment for defendant.
Outcome
The grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant salesperson was affirmed. Plaintiff salesperson’s claims for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, and unfair competition, were barred. Plaintiff’s claims were a compulsory counterclaim of a previous action that had been dismissed in federal court with prejudiced.