Marker

Marker v. McConnell CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 2021C092220California4,312 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURE

Marker’s 2002 settlement agreement with GM The McConnell dealership was not the first GM dealership that Marker attempted to acquire. In or about 2000, Marker sued GM in connection with his failed acquisition of a dealership in Folsom, California. In April 2002, after the action was removed to federal court by GMC, the parties settled their dispute. Under the terms of the April 2002 settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), Marker was barred from owning, operating, or managing, or even applying to own or operate, any GM dealership without an express written modification of the Settlement Agreement signed by a GM officer and attorney. In particular, paragraph 4 of the Settlement Agreement states: “As additional consideration for the settlement, without which Marker acknowledges GM would not be willing to enter into this agreement, Marker (a) represents and warrants that he has not applied, and agrees that he will not apply in the future (except as otherwise agreed between the parties in writing in the manner set forth in paragraph 5 below), for appointment as a Dealer-Operator, Dealer-Owner or Executive Manager of any GM dealership . . . ;…

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.