Nein

Nein v. HostPro, Inc.

Good Law
174 Cal. App. 4th 833·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 892·95 Cal. Rptr. 3d 34
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 3, 2009B199497California7,021 words

Opinion

Opinion

Suzukawa, J.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Randy Nein was employed by defendants HostPro, Inc., and Interland, Inc. (collectively, defendant), as a salesperson between October 1999 and December 2001. In December 2000, plaintiff approached AT&T Corporation (AT&T) and suggested that defendant provide Web-hosting services to some of AT&T’s business customers. Such a transaction was still being negotiated when defendant terminated plaintiff in December 2001, and it was consummated the following month.

Plaintiff seeks through the present action to recover commissions he claims are due him in connection with the AT&T transaction. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, concluding that the entire action is barred because plaintiff was not a licensed business opportunity broker. Additionally, the court found that plaintiff’s termination cut off his right to any additional commissions under the plain language of plaintiff’s written employment agreement.

We do not agree with the trial court that plaintiff’s action is barred by his failure to procure a broker’s license. In this regard, we reject defendant’s claim that plaintiff is collaterally estopped by the Court of Appeal’s…

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.