Hearing Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Calendar No: 12
Case Name: Colligan v. iPayment, Inc., et al.
Case No.: BC505570
Motion: Application for Out-of-State Deposition Subpoena
Moving Party: Plaintiff Sandra L. Colligan
Responding Party: Defendants iPayment, Inc. and Petroleum Card Services, Inc.
Tentative Ruling: Application is denied.
________________________________________
Background –
On 4/11/13, Plaintiff Sandra L. Colligan filed this action against Defendants iPayment, Inc. and Petroleum Card Services, Inc. (“PCS”) arising out of the alleged failure to pay Plaintiff residual commissions for credit card service processing services rendered and interference with Plaintiff’s business relationships. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) accounting, (3) declaratory relief, (4) interference with prospective business advantage, (5) interference with contract, (6) slander per se, and (7) unfair competition.
On 1/31/13, the Court granted Defendants
Hearing Date
January 31, 2017
Type
Other Compl-not Tort or Complex (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Dismissed - Other 08/14/2014
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Hearing Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Calendar No: 12
Case Name: Colligan v. iPayment, Inc., et al.
Case No.: BC505570
Motion: Application for Out-of-State Deposition Subpoena
Moving Party: Plaintiff Sandra L. Colligan
Responding Party: Defendants iPayment, Inc. and Petroleum Card Services, Inc.
Tentative Ruling: Application is denied.
________________________________________
Background –
On 4/11/13, Plaintiff Sandra L. Colligan filed this action against Defendants iPayment, Inc. and Petroleum Card Services, Inc. (“PCS”) arising out of the alleged failure to pay Plaintiff residual commissions for credit card service processing services rendered and interference with Plaintiff’s business relationships. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) accounting, (3) declaratory relief, (4) interference with prospective business advantage, (5) interference with contract, (6) slander per se, and (7) unfair competition.
On 1/31/13, the Court granted Defendants