Johnson v. Hurley International

MEMORANDUM *

The district court granted summary judgment to Hurley on Johnson’s contract claim because it held that the claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds. The parties dispute whether the evidence presented by Johnson-espeeially the letter from Hurley CFO Mike Ochsner (the “Ochsner letter”)-is sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. We hold that the letter is sufficient, and therefore reverse.

In order to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, a writing must state with reasonable certainty the terms and conditions of the contract. Lombardo v. Santa Monica Young Men’s Christian Ass’n, 169 Cal. App.3d 529, 538 , 215 Cal.Rptr. 224 (1985). But “[o]nly the essential terms must be stated.” Seaman’s Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., 36 Cal.3d 752, 762 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 354 , 686 P.2d 1158 (1984). Under California law, “the few terms deemed essential” are “the subject matter, the price, and the party against whom enforcement is sought.” Levin v. *413 Knight, 780 F.2d 786, 787 (9th Cir.1986). The Ochsner letter stated all of the essential terms with reasonable certainty.

The California Supreme Court has stated, moreover, that the “requirement of a memorandum is read in…