Cicurel v. Plaza Service Corp.

California Court of Appeal Apr 5, 1937 No. Civ. 10239Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an employee did not breach his fiduciary duty by securing business concessions previously held by his employer, as the evidence established the employee acted in good faith and the employer's own conduct caused the loss of the contracts.

Issues

Whether an employee breached his fiduciary duty by obtaining contracts for concessions previously held by his employer.
Whether the trial court's findings regarding the employee's good faith and lack of solicitation were supported by the evidence.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Testimony, which the trial court believed, was clearly sufficient to support the finding of plaintiff’s good faith, that there was no previous solicitation on his own behalf, and that the renewals could not have been obtained by the defendant.”

“Here the evidence shows, and the court found, there was no breach of faith; and it is clear that defendant’s conduct and not that of plaintiff caused the refusal to renew with the defendant.”

THE COURT.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff upon his complaint and against the defendant on its counterclaim and cross-complaint.

The defendant is engaged in the business of conducting hat and valet concessions in hotels, paying therefor stipulated

[212]

sums as provided in its different contracts. It held a, contract with the Crocker Hotel Co., a corporation, by which it conducted such concessions in the St. Francis Hotel, and one with the Palace Hotel Co., a corporation, for the valet concession in the Palace Hotel, both hotels being situated in San Francisco. Defendant’s right under its contract with the first corporation commenced on May 1, 1929, and continued to May 27, 1933. Its contract with the latter corporation was in effect from May 18, 1929, to May 18, 1934. The plaintiff was employed during the above periods as defendant’s manager in San Francisco at a weekly salary and a percentage of the profits from the two concussions last mentioned. When plaintiff’s employment terminated he claimed from the defendant an unpaid balance of salary, and a share of the profits, aggregating $4,945.40, to recover which this action was brought.

As a defense and by way of counterclaim for damages defendant alleged that before the termination of its contracts with the two corporations mentioned, and while plaintiff was still in its employ, he negotiated for and subsequently procured contracts between himself and the corporations for the concessions which defendant had held.

The trial court found that after the expiration of defendant’s contracts the corporations made contracts with the plaintiff ; that he had used his best efforts to induce the corporations to renew with the defendant; further, that plaintiff did not solicit the contracts or negotiate therefor before the ex-pirations mentioned, but that the corporations refused to renew with the defendant and, after the latter’s contracts expired, requested plaintiff to take over the concessions. It was also found that plaintiff’s employment terminated on May 18th and each new contract was executed after that date. Judgment was entered accordingly.

Defendant claims that the findings are unsupported and are insufficient to sustain the conclusions of the trial court.

Cicurel v. Plaza Service Corp.

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief