Fleming v. Ray-Suzuki, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Kohlweiss Inc. v. Smith

    No. A113322 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2008)

    ” (Monogram, at p. 698.) Factually, the present case is somewhat similar to Fleming v. Ray-Suzuki, Inc. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 574 (Fleming). In that case, a corporation that operated both a local retail tennis shop and a worldwide mail-order tennis business sold only the mail-order part of the business to a third party.

  2. Vacco Industries, Inc. v. Van Den Berg

    5 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 86 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105, 116, 123, 284 Cal. Rptr. 318, "substantial evidence of [a defendant's] financial condition" is required to award a plaintiff punitive damages pursuant to the CUTSA

    [Citation.]" ( Monogram Industries, Inc. v. Sar Industries, Inc., supra, 64 Cal.App.3d at p. 698; see also Fleming v. Ray-Suzuki, Inc. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 574, 581-582 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 150].)(2b) Van Den Berg argues that this exception to the general rule should not apply to him because he was not a "substantial shareholder." He stresses that he owned less than 3 percent of Vacco's stock and received only $500,000 of the $23 million purchase price.

  3. Hecny Brokerage Servs. v. Sopko

    No. A149111 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2020)

    The injunction in Monogram was broader than permitted in former section 16601, running (as written in the contract) to the United States—including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands of the United States—and Canada. In 1990, Fleming v. Ray-Suzuki, Inc. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 574 relied on Monogram to hold that parties could agree to refrain from competing in counties and cities outside California. "We think the language of Business and Professions Code section 16601 . . . cannot rationally be limited to California." (Id. at p. 583.)