Alliance Payment Systems, Inc. v. Walczer
Decision Date | 25 June 2007 |
Docket Number | No. A111425.,A111425. |
Citation | 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 789,152 Cal.App.4th 620 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | ALLIANCE PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lisbeth WALCZER et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Morgan, Franich, Fredkin & Marsh, Mark B. Fredkin, San Jose, Donn Waslif, Attorneys for Appellant/Plaintiff — Alliance Payment Systems, Inc.
Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn, W. George Wailes, Lori A. Lutzker, Burlingame, Attorneys for Appellants/Defendants — Lisbeth Walczer et al.
Plaintiff Alliance Payment Systems, Inc., a California corporation (APS), appeals from an order granting a new trial in its action against Lisbeth Walczer and Reliable Processing Solutions (RPS; Walczer and RPS are hereafter referred to collectively as defendants) to collect amounts allegedly owed under a settlement agreement that divided a business. Defendants have filed a protective cross-appeal from the judgment after a bifurcated trial.
In the first phase of the trial, a jury awarded APS damages under two provisions of the settlement agreement: one prohibiting the parties from soliciting each other's customers, and another requiring that the parties each forfeit to the other any revenue they received from the other's customers, regardless of solicitation. In the second phase of the trial, the court found that the revenue forfeiture provision was unenforceable as an illegal restraint of trade, and the court subsequently ordered a new trial because the verdict may have erroneously awarded damages under that provision.
The principal issues presented are whether the settlement provisions are restraints of trade prohibited by Business and Professions Code section 16600, and, if so, whether they are excepted from the prohibition under Business and Professions Code sections 16601 or 16602.1 We conclude that the provisions are restraints of trade, that the forfeiture of residuals for five years after dissolution, as discussed below, is illegal, but that the antisolicitation covenant is enforceable under section 16602 as a restraint imposed in connection with the dissolution of a partnership, or the disassociation of a partner. We agree with the trial court's determinations, and affirm the new trial order.
This lawsuit is part of the fallout from the breakup of the professional and personal relationship between Lisbeth Walczer and Robert Joyce, APS's founder and sole shareholder. Mr. Joyce and Ms. Walczer are merchant service providers in the credit card industry. They solicit merchants to sign up with a third party processor of credit card payments, sell hardware and software to the merchants for credit card transactions, and service the merchants by helping them with supplies, equipment, and payments. Service providers receive commissions known as "residuals" from the third party processor on credit card payments to their merchants.
Joyce operated Crown Card Services (Crown) from 1986 to 1994; Walczer worked for Crown from 1991 to 1994. Thereafter, Walczer worked at First Data Merchant Services (First Data), and Joyce started Chestnut Card Services (Chestnut). Walczer and Joyce began living together in 1997. In 1998, Joyce approached Walczer about leaving First Data; at the time, Chestnut was receiving residuals of $15,000 per month through the third party processor American National Bank (ANB). Joyce proposed, in Walczer's words at trial, that
Joyce and Walczer signed the following agreement on May 23, 1998:
APS contracted with NOVA Information Systems, Inc. (Nova) in June 1998 to process new accounts, and Walczer brought in John Gallups and Charles Malley in 1999 as sales representatives. Malley, who had worked with Walczer at First Data, testified that when Walczer called him about joining APS, she told him that she and Joyce were partners in the business. Joyce testified that he continued to service his ANB accounts, and that the ANB side of the business "remained fairly stagnate" from 1998 to 2000, while the Nova side grew thanks mainly to Walczer's efforts.
Joyce acknowledged that, by October 1999, Walczer was bringing in residuals of more than $15,000 per month, and had thereby satisfied the condition for obtaining 50 percent ownership of APS under their May 1998 agreement. Joyce told Walczer that he considered her a 50 percent owner, and he said at trial that, as far as he was concerned at that point, she "could have taken whatever she wanted" in compensation from the business. However, he did not give her any stock in APS because of tax considerations and concerns relating to his divorce proceeding.
At Walczer's request, Joyce wrote and signed the following letter, dated October 30, 1999:
Joyce and Walczer's relationship soured in 2000, and they moved into separate residences. Walczer said that, before they separated, he wrote her letters saying that "he would rather be my lover than my business partner," but she "had debated and ... decided that that was not a good way to go." Walczer said that she proposed "that we should separate the business at the end of 2000," and Joyce agreed.
Walczer ran the business on her own in 2001, using a bank account...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Associates
...941, 946, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 877 (2006), CBPC §§ 16601, 16602, or "they are necessary to protect trade secrets." Alliance Payment Sys. v. Walczer, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 789, 801 (2007). Neither party alleges any of the above exceptions apply in this The majority of cases interpreting CBPC § 16600 unde......
-
Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Associates
...946, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 877 (2006), CBPC §§ 16601, 16602, or "they are necessary to protect trade secrets." Alliance Payment Sys. v. Waltzer, 152 Cal.App.4th 620, 61 Cal. Rptr.3d 789 (2007). Neither party alleges any of the above exceptions apply in this The majority of cases interpreting CBPC ......
-
ALLIANCE PAYMENT Sys. INC. v. WALCZER
...SYSTEMS, INC.v.WALCZER (Lisbeth).No. S155066.Supreme Court of CaliforniaOct. 22, 2008. OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Prior report: Cal.App., 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 789. Dismissed and remanded to Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One. In light of Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44......
- Alliance Payment Systems v. Walczer
-
Update On Trade Secret Law
...and disfavoring agreements in restraint of competition. The same policy was at work in Alliance Payment Systems, Inc. v. Walczer, 152 Cal.App.4th 620, Cal.Rptr.3d 789 (Cal.App. 2007), where the court held that a settlement agreement resolving litigation between partners was partially unenfo......