Quidel Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.

Good Law
251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 823·39 Cal. App. 5th 530
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 29, 2019D075217California5,764 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Huffman, J.

California Appellate Law Group, Anna-Rose Mathieson, Susan Horst; Behmer & Blackford, Timothy S. Blackford; Williams & Connolly, John E. Schmidtlein and Carl R. Metz, for Real Party in Interest.

*533 Quidel Corporation (Quidel) has petitioned for a writ of mandate and/or prohibition directing the trial court to vacate its order granting summary adjudication. Quidel contends the trial court incorrectly concluded a provision in its contract with Beckman Coulter, Inc. (Beckman) was an invalid restraint on trade in violation of Business and Professions Code, 1 section 16600. Quidel argues the trial court improperly extended the holding from *534 Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937 , 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 282 , 189 P.3d 285 ( Edwards ) beyond the employment context to a provision in the parties' 2003 BNP Assay Agreement (the Agreement). We are called upon to determine whether the trial court's per se application of section 16600 to section 5.2.3 of the Agreement between Quidel and Beckman was correct. We conclude it was not, and we grant the petition and issue a writ instructing the trial court to vacate the December 7, 2018 order granting summary adjudication on the first…

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.