Kolani

Kolani v. Gluska

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 486·64 Cal. App. 4th 402·75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 257·98 Daily Journal DAR 5749·14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 39
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 1, 1998B112558California2,921 words

Opinion

Opinion

Neal, J.

Summary

A broad covenant not to compete cannot be saved from illegality by narrowed construction. A federal statute requires that pendent state claims first asserted in a federal suit must be refiled in state court within 30 days after dismissal of the federal suit. A trial court may be required to grant leave to amend when it knows of potentially viable claims at the time it sustains a demurrer, even though plaintiff does not request leave to amend.

Facts and Procedural History

From sometime in 1991 until September 27, 1993, defendant and respondent Amitai Gluska was a salesperson employed by plaintiffs and appellants Kim and Uriah Kolani, doing business as The Office Place (collectively, TOP), a wholesale supplier of office products. Defendant and respondent Eastman Office Products is Gluska’s subsequent employer.

In May 1993 Gluska and TOP executed a “Sales Representative Agreement” on a typed form. Gluska’s name was inserted in handwriting in a blank provided for the name of the “employee.” The agreement included the following:

Gluska quit on September 27, 1993. On November 19, 1993, Eastman sent a letter to various former TOP customers who had placed orders with…

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.