Supreme Court of California

A court of appeals' reversal of summary judgment for an employer on causes of action relating to plaintiff's termination is reversed where: 1) defendant-employer's offer letter contained no ambiguity, patent or latent, in its termination provisions, and extrinsic evidence proffered by plaintiff could not contradict the letter's plain meaning; and 2) there was no triable issue of fact with respect to a cause of action for fraud.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/03/2006
• Published 08/03/2006

Judges

• WERDEGAR, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Magana, Cathcart & McCarthy, Clay Robbins III, Los Angeles, and Marc Carlson for Plaintiff and Appellant., Law Offices of Jeffrey K. Winikow and Jeffrey K. Winikow, Los Angeles, for California Employment Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Bergman & Dacey, Gregory M. Bergman, Mark W. Waterman, Los Angeles, Beth D. Orellana and Robert M. Mason III, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents., Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal and Lloyd C. Loomis, Los Angeles, for Employers Group as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents., Atlantic Legal Foundation, Martin S. Kaufman;  Jackson Lewis, D. Gregory Valenza and Erika M. Barbara, San Francisco, for Southern California Chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents., Seyfarth Shaw, Stacy D. Shartin, Los Angeles, and Dennis DePalma for California Employment Law Council as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.