A Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani team, including Northern California Commercial Litigation Practice Group Leader Robert M. Bodzin and Northern California Trial Practice Group Leader Michael Laurenson, successfully defended claims of fraud, breach of contract, and WARN Act violations brought by 31 former California employees of a satellite data provider.
The lawsuit, pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court, also named GRSM’s clients, two related Australian companies and their two respective Chief Executive Officers as defendants. The GRSM team, including primary brief writers Senior Counsel Norine Busser and Associate Abraham Barrera, filed motions to quash the complaint, seeking dismissal of the claims against the four Australian defendants based on the fact that none conducted business in California or had sufficient minimum contacts with the state to justify maintaining the Silicon Valley lawsuit. In addition to the extensive briefing, the GRSM team produced more than nine thousand pages of documents that confirmed the lack of minimum contacts and produced both Chief Executive Officers for deposition in San Francisco.
The opposition to the motions to quash filed by the plaintiffs included allegations that theories of alter ego, agency, and financial entanglement with the satellite data provider mandated that all four Australian defendants remain in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs’ opposition also included a request for a continuance to allow for further discovery to be conducted before the motions were decided.
Following the plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempt to persuade the judge to change the tentative ruling, the judge granted all four motions to quash and rejected the plaintiffs’ request for continuance to allow for further discovery. Regarding the two Australian corporate defendants, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof to establish the existence of general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, alter ego, or agency. In granting the motions to quash with respect to the individuals, the judge held that the plaintiffs “missed the mark” and relied on evidence related to the corporate entities rather than the specific connection the two Chief Executive Officers allegedly had with the State of California.
This outcome exemplifies the successful collaboration between GRSM’s Commercial Litigation and Employment practices in defending individuals and companies involved in high-stakes litigation.