Moncada v. W. Coast Quartz Corp.
Decision Date | 12 March 2014 |
Docket Number | H036728 |
Citation | 221 Cal.App.4th 768,164 Cal.Rptr.3d 601 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Irma MONCADA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WEST COAST QUARTZ CORP. et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
See 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 767 et seq.
Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV169097, The Honorable Peter J. Kirwan, Judge.
Law Offices of Widmann, Randall M. Widmann, Palo Alto, Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Appellants Irma Moncada et al.
Carroll, Burdick & McDonough, Robert A. McFarlane, San Francisco, Beck, Ross, Bismonte & Finley, Ron C. Finley, Craig Allen Hansen, San Jose, Lim, Ruger & Kim, Los Angeles, Justice S. Chang, Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents West Coast Quartz Corp. et al.
This case involves a dispute between former employees of a company and the company's sole shareholders over a promised retirement bonus that was never paid.
Plaintiffs, Irma Moncada, Randy Morris and Everardo Serrano, worked for West Coast Quartz Corporation (West Coast). Defendants Paul Maloney and Nancy Tkalcevic were the owners and sole shareholders of West Coast. Defendants were preparing to sell West Coast, and wanted plaintiffs to continue to work for the company until the sale was complete. To accomplish that end, defendants repeatedly promised plaintiffs that if they continued to work for West Coast until the sale, they would be paid a bonus from the sale proceeds that would be sufficient for them to retire. Plaintiffs remained at West Coast for five years following defendants' initial promise of the retirement bonus, rejecting job offers from other companies, and opportunities to move out of the area. When defendants sold West Coast in 2009 for approximately $30 million, they did not pay plaintiffs the promised bonus.
Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants for fraud and breach of contract, among other causes of action. Following the trial court sustaining defendants' demurrer to their first amended complaint with leave to amend, plaintiffs opted to stand on the pleading. As a result, the trial court dismissed the first amended complaint and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs appeal the judgment.
In June 2004, the plaintiffs, Ms. Moncada, Mr. Morris and Mr. Serrano, were all key long-term employees of defendant, West Coast. At the time, the sole shareholders of West Coast were defendants Mr. Maloney, the president and chief financial officer, and Ms. Tkalcevic, the chief executive officer. On June 22, 2004, Mr. Maloney and Ms. Tkalcevic held a meeting with plaintiffs and other key long-term employees at Ms. Tkalcevic's home. During the meeting, Ms. Tkalcevic and Mr. Maloney told those present that they were planning to sell West Coast, and the process would take between two and 10 years to complete. Ms. Tkalcevic and Mr. Maloney also said that they did not want any of the key employees of the company to quit during the sale process, and represented to those present that they would receive stock or stock options in West Coast so that when the company actually sold, they would be rewarded for their loyalty.
Following the meeting in June, seeing no action from defendants regarding the grant of stock or stock options in West Coast, some managers and key employees began to leave the company. On August 27, 2004, Mr. Maloney told Ms. Moncada that he and Ms. Tkalcevic did not want to reward disloyal employees, and planned to change the way they would reward employees who stayed with the company until the completed sale. Mr. Maloney told Ms. Moncada that he and Ms. Tkalcevic would pay the employees who stayed with the company a bonus when the company sold that would be enough for the employees to retire.
Following Mr. Maloney's first statement of his promise to pay plaintiffs a bonus upon the sale of the company in August 2004, he repeated the promise numerous times whenever an employee expressed doubt or a wish to leave the company. On September 5, 2005, Mr. Maloney told Ms. Moncada that he was increasing her pay and reiterated that she would receive a bonus of enough money to retire when the company was sold. On November 20, 2005, when Ms. Moncada said she wanted to leave the company, Mr. Maloney and Ms. Tkalcevic reiterated their promise that when the company was sold, they would pay her a bonus that would be sufficient to retire. Ms. Moncada continued to work for the company. On August 15, 2006, Mr. Maloney told Mr. Moncada that he and Ms. Tkalcevic were consulting with financial advisors to determine an amount of the bonus for the employees when the company sold that would minimize tax liability.
With regard to plaintiff Mr. Serrano, Mr. Maloney reiterated the same specific promise that if Mr. Serrano continued to work at West Coast until the company's sale, he would be paid a bonus in an amount sufficient for him to retire. Mr. Maloney repeated the promise to Mr. Serrano on February 7, 2005, January 26, 2006, and May 17, 2006, when Mr. Maloney increased Mr. Serrano's pay and gave him an update on the progress of the sale, saying, “[Y]ou guys will get the bonus, enough to retire.” On June 3, 2006, Mr. Serrano told Mr. Maloney he was considering moving to Bakersfield. In response, Mr. Maloney reiterated the promise of the bonus if he stayed with West Coast until the sale. Mr. Maloney repeated the terms of the promise on August 25, 2006, and April 14, 2007.
Mr. Maloney reiterated the retirement bonus many times to plaintiff Mr. Morris between 2004 and 2009. Mr. Morris turned down nine offers of employment from other companies during that period in reliance on defendants' promise of a bonus at the time of West Coast's sale.
In November 2009, plaintiffs learned that defendants had sold and transferred all of their shares in West Coast for the amount of $30,210,000. Plaintiffs never received the bonus for retirement that defendants promised to them.
In April 2010, plaintiffs filed their original complaint against defendants asserting causes of action for misrepresentation-concealment, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, estoppel in pais, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
Defendants demurred to the original complaint and on September 7, 2010, the trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, except as to the cause of action for estoppel in pais, to which the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on October 4, 2010, that alleged causes of action for misrepresentation-concealment, breach of contract and implied covenants, promissory estoppel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent misrepresentation.
Defendants demurred to the first amended complaint. On February 9, 2011, the court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, except as to the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, to which the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint, and instead, chose to stand on the first amended complaint. As a result, the trial court dismissed the first amended complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2), and entered a judgment in favor or defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the judgment.
Plaintiffs assert on appeal that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the first amended complaint with leave to amend, and dismissing the action with prejudice. In addition, plaintiffs argue the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the action for estoppel in pais alleged in the original complaint, without leave to amend.
This appeal involves review of two separate orders. The first is the trial court's order of September 7, 2010, wherein it sustained defendants' demurrer to plaintiffs' cause of action for estoppel in pais without leave to amend. We review this order as an “intermediate ruling ... which involves the merits or necessarily affects the judgment or order appealed from....” (Code of Civil Procedure § 906.)
The second order was on February 9, 2011, when the trial court sustained defendants' demurrer to the first amended complaint with leave to amend. As this court stated in County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 313, (Id. at p. 312, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 313.)
The issue raised in this appeal is entirely a matter of law and we hold that the first amended complaint states a cause of action. A demurrer is properly sustained when the complaint “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e).) ( Los Altos Golf and Country Club v. County of Santa Clara (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 198, 203, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 340.) “Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pga W. Residential Ass'n, Inc. v. Hulven Int'l, Inc.
... ... ( 14 Cal.App.5th 169 Moncada v. West Coast Quartz Corp ... (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 768, 791792, 164 ... ...
-
Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress
... ... Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ... and definiteness as to be capable of enforcement"); see also Moncada v. W. Coast Quartz Corp. , 221 Cal.App.4th 768, 793, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 601 ... ...
-
Byrd v. Pierce Cnty.
... ... 475, 502, 309 P.3d 636 (2013) (quoting Walker v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp. of Wash ., 176 Wash. App. 294, 322, 308 P.3d 716 (2013) ); see RCW ... App. 4th 1443, 1463, 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 372 (2011) ; Moncada v. W. Coast Quartz Corp. , 221 Cal. App. 4th 768, 782, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d ... ...
-
Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
... ... ( B & P Development Corp. v. City of Saratoga (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 949, 959, 230 Cal.Rptr. 192.) ... be ascertained, the contract is void and unenforceable." " ( Moncada v. West Coast Quartz Corp. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 768, 777, 164 ... ...
-
California Employment Law Notes - January 2014
...Employees Who Were Denied Stay Bonuses Could Proceed With Claims For Fraud And Breach Of Contract Moncada v. West Coast Quartz Corp., 221 Cal. App. 4th 768 Three plaintiff-employees sued after they were denied bonuses they had been promised would be large enough for them to retire and that ......
-
Employment Law Case Notes
...Who Were Denied Stay Bonuses Could Proceed With Claims for Fraud and Breach of Contract Moncada v. West Coast Quartz Corp., 221 Cal. App. 4th 768 (2013)Three plaintiff-employees sued after they were denied bonuses that they had been promised, including alleged promises that the bonuses woul......