Filed June 19, 2017
Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 761, 772 [“Employers frequently boast of good benefits, competitive salaries, excellent working conditions and the like. To anoint such puffing language with contractual import would open the door to a plethora of specious litigation and constitute a severe and unwarranted intrusion on the ability of business enterprises to manage internal affairs”; see also Rochlis v. Walt Disney Co. (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 201, 213-214 [promises allegedly made to a former employee that he was to receive “reasonable salary increases” and “reasonable annual bonuses,” and would “actively and meaningfully participate in all … creative activities” of the department to which he was assigned were not cognizable as contract claims]. Plaintiff testified that when she commenced employment she was told by human resources that she was being hired for a career position.
Filed March 17, 2017
See, e.g., Gerber v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 5007921, at *5 & n.3 (D. Ariz. Oct. 20, 2011) (“Arizona courts treat actual knowledge as lack of reliance[.]”); accord Rochlis v. Walt Disney Co., 23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 793, 800 (Ct. App. 1993) (concluding that plaintiff could not establish reliance on “any misrepresentations as a matter of law” because he was “fully aware of all of the problems which he argues were previously not disclosed to him”). Moreover, for a plaintiff to have standing, he must establish an unbroken causal chain between his injury and the defendant’s challenged conduct.
Filed January 12, 2017
“Promises too vague to be enforced will not support a fraud claim any more than they will one in contract.” Rochlis v Walt Disney Co. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 201, 216 (promises regarding “appropriate” financial rewards). A statement about future value is ordinarily classified as a “speculative observation and a mere statement of opinion, and as such, does not constitute a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS SEOWON INTECH CO., LTD’S COUNTER-COMPLAINT 10 Case 8:16-cv-02212-AG-DFM Document 11 Filed 01/12/17 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:266 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 basis for a complaint of fraud”.
Filed December 2, 2016
Nor do deprivations of salary or other economic benefits generally support a constructive discharge claim.”) (internal citations omitted) (citing Turner, 7 Cal. 4th at 1254, 1247); see also, e.g., King v. AC & R Advert., 65 F.3d 764, 768 (9th Cir. 1995) (granting summary judgment for employer because “demotion, even when accompanied by a reduction in pay, does not by itself trigger a constructive discharge”); Rochlis v. Walt Disney Co., 19 Cal. App. 4th 201, 213 (1993) (rejecting constructive discharge claim where plaintiff complained that he was underpaid because those complaints were merely indicative of the “stresses and strains characteristic of life at the top of a Case 5:15-cv-05061-NC Document 42 Filed 12/02/16 Page 18 of 30 DB2/ 30870617.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- CASE NO. 3-15-CV-05061 NC DEFENDANT HP’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT major corporation.”)
Filed February 3, 2011
An employee cannot show justifiable reliance 15 as a matter of law where he has “become fully aware of all of the problems which he argues were 16 previously not disclosed to him, but nonetheless decide[s] to remain [as an employee].” Rochlis 17 v. Walt Disney Co., 19 Cal. App. 4th 201, 215 (1993) (disapproved on other grounds in Turner v. 18 Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1251 (1994)). 19 The facts in Rochlis are similar to those presented here.