Abeyta

Abeyta v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES CTY.

Good Law
17 Cal. App. 4th 1037·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 819·21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 680·93 Daily Journal DAR 10204·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6023
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 6, 1993B071253California3,163 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

In this writ proceeding we clarify an issue which evidently has been causing some conftision in certain trial courts. We construe the Supreme Court’s Foley decision (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654 [ 765 P.2d 373 ]) to exempt from the statute of frauds oral employment contracts which are terminable within one year even when those contracts provide the term of employment is for a specific duration longer than one year. Although we do not regard this as a close question, we publish this opinion solely for the purpose of providing guidance to trial courts on what apparently is proving to be a troublesome issue.

Facts and Proceedings Below

This case turns on a narrow issue requiring interpretation of the statute of frauds. Accordingly, we only provide a brief summary of the facts in order to place this narrow issue in context.

According to the allegations of petitioner Mike Abeyta’s complaint, real party in interest Jolene Company, Inc. (Jolene) is a dress manufacturer and distributor. In November 1989, Jolene and Abeyta entered into an oral employment contract. This contract called for Abeyta to serve as national sales manager and as sales…

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.