Thompson

Thompson v. Fish

Good Law
152 F. Supp. 779·1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3466
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 1957No. 20255California709 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Yankwich, J.

The Motion of the defendants Don W. Fish and Rita Fish to dismiss the complaint as to them and each of them, heretofore heard and submitted, is now decided as follows:

For the reasons stated in the Comment to follow, the said Motion of the defendants Don W. Fish and Rita Fish to dismiss the complaint as to them and each of them is hereby granted.

However, the plaintiff is granted twenty days from the date hereof in which to file, if so advised, an amended complaint limited solely to the recovery of the bonus of $9,000 paid or the unearned part of it.

Comment

The contract between the plaintiff and the defendants Fish contained the following clause:

This clause is clearly violative of the Cartwright Act (California Business and Professions Code, § 16600), and is not within any of the exceptions of *780 the Act. California Business and Professions Code, §§ 16601,16602. However, it is a separable provision. General Paint Corp. v. Seymour, 1932, 124 Cal. App. 611 , 12 P.2d 990 ; Edwards v. Mullin, 1934, 220 Cal. 379 , 30 P.2d 997 ; Cal. Civil Code, § 1599. For it relates solely to a condition which does not affect the terms of the contract of employment, but only the consequences…

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.