Rosenzweig v. Vallurupalli CA2/6

Filed 1/25/22 Rosenzweig v. Vallurupalli CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

RUSS ROSENZWEIG, 2d Civ. No. B311935 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2020- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00540108-CU-BT-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

HARI K. VALLURUPALLI,

Defendant and Respondent.

The trial court sustained without leave to amend defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s third amended complaint alleging intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and negligence. We affirm the ensuing judgment. FACTS The facts are taken from the third amended complaint. Daniel Diermeier is described as “a renowned crisis and reputation management consultant.” He is a principal in Silicon Valley Innovation Institute, LLC (SVII). Plaintiff Russ Rosenzweig was the chief executive officer (CEO) of SVII.

Rosenzweig has an interest in Launch Education, LLC, which in turn has an interest in SVII. Diermeier as an individual entered into a service agreement with Hari Vallurupalli as an individual and as manager of 63 Partners, LLC, and Paul Del Gallo as sole member of Three Companies, LLC. The agreement contained confidentiality and noncompetition clauses. The agreement also contained a provision giving the managers of 63 Partners and Three Companies the right to notify any present or prospective employer or client of Diermeier of their rights and obligations in their agreement with Diermeier. It also gave the managers the right to give notices to any present or prospective employer or client should Diermeier breach his obligations under the agreement. In February 2018, Del Gallo sent a notice by e-mail to 15 of Diermeier’s business associates, including his partners in SVII. It stated, “[This notice is] sent to inform [you] ‘of certain conditions that may be of relevance to you or your firm. In preservation of our position in law and in equity, you are notified of some of the tenets of Dr. Diermeier’s contract.’ ” The notice also stated the sender’s right to injunctive relief for Diermeier’s violation of his covenant not to compete or his confidentiality obligation. The notice was sent from the account of a company Del Gallo owns called First Sight. Vallurupalli conspired with Del Gallo to send the notices. After Del Gallo sent the notices, SVII’s partners stopped their collaboration with Diermeier. They lost all confidence in Diermeier and feared becoming involved in ligation. SVII ceased