Rochlis v. Walt Disney Co.

5 Citing briefs

  1. Xochitl Nisbet v. American National Red Cross et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment

    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.

  2. In Re: Arizona Theranos Incorporated Litigation

    MOTION to Dismiss Case

    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.

  3. Global Telecom Corporation v. Seowon Intech Co Ltd et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Seowon InTech Co., LTD's Counter-Complaint

    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”.

  4. Drewry v. Hewlett Packard Company

    MOTION for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment

    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.”)

  5. Marr v. Bank of America National Association

    MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

    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.