# 5. Agustin Gonzalez, et al. v. Denbeste Engine Co., LLC, et al.
Case No.: TC028576
Matter on calendar for: Demurrer and motion to strike
Tentative ruling:
Plaintiffs filed a wrongful termination claim against Defendant Denbeste on October 6, 2016. On February 22, 2017, the Court allowed Denbeste to file a Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”). Denbeste filed it on March 1, 2017. The SACC alleges (1) Breach of Duty of Loyalty and Violation of Labor Code section 2863; (2) Misappropriation of Trade Secret – Civil Code section 3426; (3) Tortious Interference with Contract; and (4) Unfair Competition in Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs’/Cross-Defendants’ demurrer to the SACC and motion to strike portions of the SACC. Timely opposition and reply papers have been filed.
Denbeste argues that Plaintiffs’ demurrer must be overruled because Plaintiffs failed to raise any statute of limitations argument during the meet an
Type
Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
# 5. Agustin Gonzalez, et al. v. Denbeste Engine Co., LLC, et al.
Case No.: TC028576
Matter on calendar for: Demurrer and motion to strike
Tentative ruling:
Plaintiffs filed a wrongful termination claim against Defendant Denbeste on October 6, 2016. On February 22, 2017, the Court allowed Denbeste to file a Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”). Denbeste filed it on March 1, 2017. The SACC alleges (1) Breach of Duty of Loyalty and Violation of Labor Code section 2863; (2) Misappropriation of Trade Secret – Civil Code section 3426; (3) Tortious Interference with Contract; and (4) Unfair Competition in Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs’/Cross-Defendants’ demurrer to the SACC and motion to strike portions of the SACC. Timely opposition and reply papers have been filed.
Denbeste argues that Plaintiffs’ demurrer must be overruled because Plaintiffs failed to raise any statute of limitations argument during the meet an