Fleming

Fleming v. Ray-Suzuki, Inc.

Good Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 1213·225 Cal. App. 3d 574·275 Cal. Rptr. 150·90 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8501
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 21, 1990D008775California3,540 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

John Fleming (Fleming) brought a contract and tort action against Ray-Suzuki, Inc., et al. (collectively Ray-Suzuki) based on Ray-Suzuki’s violation of a covenant not to compete “in the United States.” Judgment was entered on a jury verdict in favor of Fleming for restitution based on rescission, compensatory damages of $158,680, and punitive damages of $5,000. Fleming appealed from the trial court’s denial of his request for $32,000 in attorney’s fees, and Ray-Suzuki cross-appealed from the judgment, contending the jury instruction on covenants not to compete was erroneous, the parties’ covenant not to compete was invalid, Fleming failed to state a cause of action for rescission, and there was no substantial evidence of fraud. We affirm the judgment.

Background to the Litigation

Ray-Suzuki, Inc. was a corporation which consisted of two divisions, Ray’s Tennis Shop, a retail tennis shop on University Avenue in Hillcrest, and RAYCO, a world-wide mail order tennis business. Ray-Suzuki kept the shop and sold RAYCO to Fleming for $75,000 in cash and a $25,000 installment note. The bill of sale describes the assigned property as: “All rights and name of a certain mail order…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.