Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In plaintiff's suit against its former employee for breach of contract and conversion of patents belonging to the company, grant of defendant's motion for a demurrer on the ground that plaintiff's claims were barred under Code Civ. Proc. section 426.30 because they should have been raised in the prior suit is reversed and remanded: 1) the allegations of the complaint included claims that were barred on their face by the compulsory cross-complaint statute because they were claims logically related to defendant's cross-complaint that should have been asserted in the prior suit; and 2) based upon certain allegations in the complaint and representations made by counsel both at the hearing on the demurrer and on appeal, plaintiff may be able to assert claims against the defendant that did not exist when it answered defendant's cross-complaint in the prior suit and would thus not be barred under section 426.30.
Filed November 25, 2009
Opinion by Judge Duffy
For Appellant: Thomas A. Counts, T. Lee Kissman, Paul, Hastings, Janofly & Walker
For Appellee: Hugh F. Lennon, Ann A. Nguyen, Robinson & Wood