Wichmann v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 4/26/16 Wichmann v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo) ----

JEFFREY WICHMANN et al., C077685

Petitioners, (Super. Ct. No. CV CV 06-72352) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF YOLO COUNTY,

Respondent;

DALE M. WALLIS,

Real Party in Interest.

This original proceeding comes after appeal and our remand to the trial court for further proceedings. Respondents Jeffrey Wichmann and Mary Holmes petition for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to grant their motion for judgment on the pleadings as to equitable relief sought by real party in interest Dale M. Wallis. Wallis

1

responds, however, that she is entitled to a trial against defendants on those equitable claims. She bases this argument on an improper reading of our decision reversing equitable relief ordered against another defendant. We conclude that Wallis, having lost on her equitable claims against these individual defendants long ago and having failed to assert on appeal that her equitable claims against them were valid, cannot now assert those equitable claims by arguing that our reversal of the court’s granting of equitable relief against another defendant necessarily resurrected her equitable claims against these two defendants. We therefore grant the petition of Wichmann and Holmes for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to grant their motion for judgment on the pleadings. BACKGROUND This aged litigation goes back to 1994. On October 17, 2013, we filed an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment. We provide the details of that disposition below. Here, however, we quote the summary of this litigation as provided in that opinion: “Plaintiff Dale M. Wallis invented an antigen for a bovine mastitis vaccine as part of her duties as an employee of defendant PHL Associates, Inc. (PHL), more than 20 years ago. The vaccine was eventually sold to Upjohn, and this protracted litigation has featured the contest between Wallis and PHL over the benefits related to that sale. A jury concluded that PHL and Wallis agreed that Wallis would own the antigen, but the jury also concluded that PHL committed no fraud relating to the antigen. Instead, the jury concluded PHL committed fraud relating to Wallis's money–$20,000 she paid to PHL and its shareholders (also defendants) to buy stock in PHL. Based on this conclusion, the jury awarded Wallis a total of more than $2 million dollars in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. Finding unjust enrichment, the trial court awarded Wallis a constructive trust against PHL of more than $1 million. Both sides appeal[ed].” (Wallis v. PHL Associates, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 814, 816 (Wallis).)