In a non-competition clause contract suit, petitioner insurance agent applied for a writ of mandate to direct respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) to set aside its summary judgment in respondent insurance company’s favor, on the grounds that respondent insurance company had improperly amended its complaint to include declaratory relief on pending issues contrary to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f)(1) (1993).
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. informs on how to fire an employee gracefully
Overview
Following a grant of summary judgment for declaratory relief against petitioner insurance agent on real party in interest insurance company’s amended complaint in a non-competition clause contract suit in the trial court, petitioner filed a writ of mandate with the court, contending that real party in interest had improperly amended its complaint to include declaratory relief on pending issues contrary to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f)(1) (1993). The court issued the writ and directed respondent trial court to set aside its order and enter an order denying summary judgment because the amended complaint for declaratory relief had not purported to adjudicate the entirety of any particular cause of action and only related to certain non-conclusive issues. The court found that respondent trial court had abused its discretion because the amendment was barred by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f)(1) (1993).
Outcome
The court issued a mandate directing respondent trial court to set aside its order that granted real party in interest insurance company’s motion for summary adjudication of its declaratory relief cause of action, and to enter an order denying that motion. The court found that respondent trial court had abused its discretion because the declaratory relief action had not purported to adjudicate the entirety of any cause of action.