kathryn retzer, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK HERNING, et. al. Defendants.
Case No.: BC724404
Hearing Date: March 13, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
BACKGROUND
On October 4, 2018, Plaintiff Kathryn Retzer (“Plaintiff”) filed the original complaint alleging seven causes of action against Defendants Patrick Herning; 11 Honore, Inc., Medha Agarwal, Redpoint Ventures, and Greycroft Partners IV, LP (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) breach of employment contract; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) inducing breach of contract; (5) tortious interference with contractual relations; (6) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; and (7) quantum meruit.
ANALYSIS
A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson
Hearing Date
March 13, 2019
Type
Other Contract Dispute (not breach/insurance/fraud/negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
kathryn retzer, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK HERNING, et. al. Defendants.
Case No.: BC724404
Hearing Date: March 13, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
BACKGROUND
On October 4, 2018, Plaintiff Kathryn Retzer (“Plaintiff”) filed the original complaint alleging seven causes of action against Defendants Patrick Herning; 11 Honore, Inc., Medha Agarwal, Redpoint Ventures, and Greycroft Partners IV, LP (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) breach of employment contract; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) inducing breach of contract; (5) tortious interference with contractual relations; (6) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; and (7) quantum meruit.
ANALYSIS
A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson