Page

Police Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Page

Good Law
22 Cal. App. 5th 336·231 Cal. Rptr. 3d 417
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 2018H043220California4,119 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Grover, J.

*338 In this derivative action, shareholders of Google, Inc. allege the corporation was harmed by executives who agreed to refrain from actively recruiting employees working for competitors. The trial court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion, finding the action barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We will affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are three Google shareholders who brought separate derivative suits that were later consolidated. Defendants are officers and directors of Google, with the corporation itself included as a nominal defendant. 1 The lawsuit stems from agreements Google executives made with competitors regarding the recruitment of employees. The nature of the agreements was that Google would not "cold call" (meaning initiate contact for the purpose of *339 recruiting) employees of certain competitors, such as Apple. The competitors similarly agreed to not cold call Google employees.

In September 2010, the United States Department of Justice filed a civil antitrust action against Google and several other companies that participated in the no cold call agreements. The complaint alleged that the agreements illegally diminished competition for…

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.