Suarez v. Trigg Laboratories, Inc.

Filed 9/7/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

RAFAEL V. SUAREZ, B264511

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC544554) v.

TRIGG LABORATORIES, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elizabeth Feffer, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Greg May and Greg May, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp and Mark T. Hiraide for Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________________

Rafael Suarez challenges the grant of Trigg Laboratories’ special motion to strike 1 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. We affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Suarez, a business consultant, entered into an arrangement with Trigg Laboratories (Trigg) and its principal owner Michael Trygstad in April 2005, with the goal of increasing company profit and growth to prepare Trigg for an eventual sale. The parties initially expected the arrangement to be short term, and Suarez was paid $125 an hour. After several months, the scope of the work expanded to include raising additional capital. The parties agreed Suarez would receive five percent of new capital raised and seven percent of any sale of Trigg, or if neither occurred, he would receive just a monthly retainer. This was not reduced to writing. Suarez helped Trigg obtain additional capital, which would have entitled him to $75,000 under their agreement. At Trygstad’s request, he agreed to defer that payment in exchange for an increase of the percentage he would eventually receive for an “end transaction.” That percentage was later increased to 13.5 percent. In an April 2007 e-mail to Suarez, Trygstad indicated he did not want to sell the company for less than $40 million. He also told Suarez his potential compensation upon sale was excessive. Suarez grew increasingly concerned about continuing to work for Trigg with only an oral agreement, and in June 2007, he sought a formal written agreement. Trygstad refused, and one week later terminated Suarez’s employment. On September 24, 2007, Suarez filed suit against Trigg for quantum meruit, seeking to recover the fair value of the services he had rendered over the course of the Trigg engagement. (Suarez v. Trigg Laboratories, Inc. (Super. Ct., L.A. County, 2007, No. 378025) (Suarez I).)