This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 03/07/2018 at 16:48:03 (UTC).

XXXXX

Case Summary

On 02/25/2014 XXXXX was filed as a Contract - Business lawsuit. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Snauffer, Mark, Culver Kapetan, Kristi and McGuire, Rosemary. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0572

  • Filing Date:

    02/25/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Snauffer, Mark

Culver Kapetan, Kristi

McGuire, Rosemary

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Plaintiffs

Baldwin, Peter

Bellasis, Nicholas

Busch, Ralph

Carter, Regina

Day, John

Droz, Gerald

Edde, Larry

Edwards, Steven

Marra, Salvatore

Winn, Tomlyn

Alliant Insurance Services Inc, a Delaware Corp

Zimmer, Greg

Defendants and Cross Defendants

Aon Risk Services Companies Inc, a Maryland Corp

Aon Risk Insurance Services West Inc, a Calif. Corp

Aon PLC, a United Kingdom Corp

Aon Group Inc, a Maryland Corp

Aon PLC

Cross Defendants

Aon Corporation

Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc.

Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc.

Aon PLC

1 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

FISCHER, DEBRA L

355 S. Grand Ave. Suite 4400

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Carreno, Ainsley G.

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorney

Gigounas, George

Other Attorneys

O'Connor, Terrence R.

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service

Proof of Service; Comment: Proof of Service

Order Received for Signature

Proposed Order; Comment: Proposed Order

Proof of Service

Proof of Service; Comment: Notice of Appeal and Undertaking

Motion in Limine filed

Motion (No Fee); Comment: Motion in Limine No. 31 to Preclude the Presentation of Evidence Stamped "Confidential" Pursuant to the Parties' Protective Order, but Not Otherwise Designated as Such Prior to This Litigation

Proof of Service

Proof of Service; Comment: Proof of Service

Statement filed

Separate Statement of Facts - Part I (redacted); Comment: Separate Statement of disputed and undisputed material facts in opposition to motion for summary judgment (Part I)

Order Received for Signature

Proposed Order; Comment: *PENDING REVIEW*

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: Appendix of Non-California Authorities cited in support of reply brief in support of motion to strike portions of first amended cross complaint

Request for Judical Notice

Request for Judical Notice

Memorandum of Costs filed

Memorandum of Costs; Comment: Total Costs: $33,883.04

Reply filed

Reply; Comment: Reply Memorandum In Support Of Plaintiffs And Crossdefendants' Motion In Lim/ne No. 26 To Exclude Evidence, Testimony And Argument Regarding Possession And Disclosure Of Their Own Wage And Salary Information

Reply filed

Reply; Comment: Reply Memorandum In Support Of Plaintiffs And Crossdefendants' Motion Jn Lim/ne No. 23 To Exclude Evidence, Testimony And Argument Regarding Alliant's Employment Agreements With Others

Declaration Filed

Morgan Declaration in support of Motion in Limine No. 10; Comment: Morgan Declaration in support of Motion in Limine No. 10

Motion in Limine filed

Motion In Limine No. 7; Comment: No. 7

Notice Filed

Notice; Comment: Notice of Intent to Appear By Telephone

Proof of Service

Proof of Service

Statement filed

Statement filed; Comment: separate statement of undisputed facts Part 3 (no longer underseal)

Notice Filed

Declaration; Comment: Appendix of Non-california Authorities Cited in Support Of Cross-defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

883 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/16/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Judgment on Jury Verdict; Judicial Officer: Culver Kapetan, Kristi; Judgment Type: Judgment on Jury Verdict; Party Names: Baldwin, Peter; Bellasis, Nicholas; Busch, Ralph; Carter, Regina; Day, John; Droz, Gerald; Edde, Larry; Edwards, Steven; Marra, Salvatore; Winn, Tomlyn; Alliant Insurance Services Inc, a Delaware Corp; Aon Risk Services Companies Inc, a Maryland Corp; Aon Risk Insurance Services West Inc, a Calif. Corp; Aon PLC, a United Kingdom Corp; Aon Group Inc, a Maryland Corp; Aon Corporation; Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc.; Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc.; Aon PLC; Baldwin, Peter; Bellasis, Nicholas; Busch, Ralph; Carter, Regina; Day, John; Droz, Gerald; Edde, Larry; Edwards, Steven; Marra, Salvatore; Winn, Tomlyn; Culver Kapetan, Kristi; Alliant Insurance Services Inc, a Delaware Corp; Aon PLC; Pearson, Stephen W.; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Aon Corporation; Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc.; Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc.; Aon PLC; Judgment Amount: $49,715.00; Awarded Against:; Winn, Tomlyn; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Aon Corporation; Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc.; Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc.; Aon PLC; Judgment Amount: $29,392.00; Awarded Against:; Edwards, Steven; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Aon Corporation; Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc.; Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc.; Aon PLC; Judgment Amount: $117,495.00; Awarded Against:; Edde, Larry; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Aon Corporation; Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc.; Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc.; Aon PLC; Judgment Amount: $29,392.00; Awarded Against:; Droz, Gerald; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Aon Corporation; Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc.; Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc.; Aon PLC; Judgment Amount: $146,888.00; Awarded Against:; Day, John; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Aon Corporation; Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc.; Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc.; Aon PLC; Judgment Amount: $6,465.00; Awarded Against:; Carter, Regina; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Aon Corporation; Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc.; Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc.; Aon PLC; Judgment Amount: $74,511.00; Awarded Against:; Busch, Ralph; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Aon Corporation; Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc.; Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc.; Aon PLC; Judgment Amount: $18,324.00; Awarded Against:; Bellasis, Nicholas; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Aon Corporation; Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc.; Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc.; Aon PLC; Judgment Amount: $18,324.00; Awarded Against:; Baldwin, Peter; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Winn, Tomlyn; Judgment Amount: $115,285.00; Awarded Against:; Aon Risk Services Companies Inc, a Maryland Corp; Aon Risk Insurance Services West Inc, a Calif. Corp; Aon PLC, a United Kingdom Corp; Aon Group Inc, a Maryland Corp; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Edwards, Steven; Judgment Amount: $151,936.00; Awarded Against:; Aon Risk Services Companies Inc, a Maryland Corp; Aon Risk Insurance Services West Inc, a Calif. Corp; Aon PLC, a United Kingdom Corp; Aon Group Inc, a Maryland Corp; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Droz, Gerald; Judgment Amount: $177,271.00; Awarded Against:; Aon Risk Services Companies Inc, a Maryland Corp; Aon Risk Insurance Services West Inc, a Calif. Corp; Aon PLC, a United Kingdom Corp; Aon Group Inc, a Maryland Corp; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Bellasis, Nicholas; Judgment Amount: $102,552.00; Awarded Against:; Aon Risk Services Companies Inc, a Maryland Corp; Aon Risk Insurance Services West Inc, a Calif. Corp; Aon PLC, a United Kingdom Corp; Aon Group Inc, a Maryland Corp; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Baldwin, Peter; Judgment Amount: $80,749.00; Awarded Against:; Aon Risk Services Companies Inc, a Maryland Corp; Aon Risk Insurance Services West Inc, a Calif. Corp; Aon PLC, a United Kingdom Corp; Aon Group Inc, a Maryland Corp

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • Motion - Attorney Fees- Judicial Officer: Culver Kapetan, Kristi; Hearing Time: 3:28 PM; Comment: (Peter Baldwin); Deborah Fischer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service- Proof of Service; Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration Filed- Declaration of Amanda L. Morgan ISO Defs/Cross-Cmplts' Oppos; Comment: Declaration of Amanda L. Morgan ISO Defs/Cross-Cmplts' Opposition

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration Filed- Declaration of Gerald G. Knapton ISO Defs/Cross-Cmplts' Oppo; Comment: Declaration of Gerald G. Knapton ISO Defs/Cross-Cmplts' Opposition

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Opposition filed- Defs/Cross-Cmplts' Opposition to Pltfs/Cross-Defs' Motion fo; Comment: Defs/Cross-Cmplts' Opposition to Pltfs/Cross-Defs' Motion for an Order re Entitlement to Award of Attorneys' Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • Court Reporter's Waiver of Deposit- Comment: Myra Pish

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Clerk's Certificate of Mailing- Clerk's Certificate of Mailing; Comment: I certify that I am not a party to this cause and a true copy of the ( Minute Order from Chambers/Tentative Ruling ) was placed in a sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below following our ordinary business practice. I am readily familiar with this court's practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid. Place of Mailing: Fresno, California on ( ) . Parties served: ( )

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order Attachment (Tentative Rulings Only)- Civil Document

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • Chambers Work- Pre- Judicial Officer: McGuire, Rosemary; Hearing Time: 5:30 PM; Result: Heard

    Read MoreRead Less
1,569 More Docket Entries
  • 03/25/2015
  • Financial info for Baldwin, Peter: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2015
  • Financial info for Baldwin, Peter: Counter Payment Receipt # 200327 Baldwin, Peter $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2015
  • Financial info for Baldwin, Peter: Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2014
  • Financial info for Baldwin, Peter: Counter Payment Receipt # 196681 Baldwin, Peter $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2014
  • Financial info for Baldwin, Peter: Transaction Assessment $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2014
  • Financial info for Baldwin, Peter: Counter Payment Receipt # 192384 Baldwin, Peter $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2014
  • Financial info for Baldwin, Peter: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2014
  • Financial info for Baldwin, Peter: Counter Payment Receipt # 187471 Baldwin, Peter $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2014
  • Financial info for Baldwin, Peter: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2014
  • Financial: Baldwin, Peter; Total Financial Assessment $8,688.06; Total Payments and Credits $8,688.06

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

. At ————

. —— S —— | rr— | ——— g - S—— . ————— ———r——————— . . * oty .

—— Y —— - — - O ——— ——

' MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP F ” L E ,

i DEBRA L. FISCHER (Bar No. 142516)

13 [ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA " 14 COUNTY OF FRESNO - CENTRAL DISTRICT FILED BY FAX

PETER BALDWIN, et al., 15 “a Case No. 14 CE CG 00572 Plaintiffs, 16 | aintitts - CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 17 V. | + MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE

PORTIONS OF CROSS-

18 AOII\T RISK SERVICES COMPANIES, INC,, COMPLAINANTS' SECOND s etal, Defendants AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT . Date: February 11,2016 - Time: 3:30 pm 21 [ - ~ Dept. 403 I AON CORPORATION. et al Hon. Kristi Culver Kapetan 22 P : , | Complaint filed February 25,2014 ’ Cross-Complainants, Trial Date: March 7, 2016 v, 24 x PETER BALDWIN, et al,, 1

OCKIUS

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on February 11, 2016, at 3:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard before the Honorable Kristi Culver Kapetan, Superior Court Judge presiding, in Department 403 of the Fresno Superior Court, located at 1130 O Street, Fresno, California, 93721, Cross-Defendants Peter Baldwin, Nicholas Bellasis, Ralph “Trey” Busch, Regina Carter, John Day, Gerald Droz, Larry Edde, Steven Edwards, Salvatore Marra, Tomlyn Winn, and Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”), will and hereby do move to strike parts of the Second Amended Cross-Complaint of Aon Corporation, Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc., Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc., and Aon plc (collectively,

- “Cross-Complainants” or “Aon”), described below, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 435 and 436. This Motion is brought on the grounds that Aon has reasserted claims based in part on | allegations of breaches of covenants this Court has concluded are unenforceable pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 16600, Accordingly, Cross-Defendants move to strike the following: |

1. Paragraph 140, lines 3-12, the words ““Covenant Not to Solicit, The Participant hereby covenants and agrees that, except with the prior written consent of Aon, the Participant (on the Participant’s own behalf or on behelf of any other person or entity) will not, during the course of employment, and for a period of two (2) years after the Participant’s Termination Date, directly or indirectly, call upon, solicit, accept, engage in, service or perform, other than on behalf of Aon, any business of the same type or kind as the business performed by Aon from or with respect to (i) clients of Aon with respect to whom the Participant provided services, either alone or with others, or had a business relationship, or on whose account he worked or became familiar, or supervised directly or indirectly the servicing activities related to such clients, during the twenty-four (24) months prior to the Participant’s Termination Date or within twelve (12) months prior to such Termination Date and (ii) prospective clients of Aon which the Participant alone, in

combination with others, or in a supervisory capacity, solicited during the six (6) months prior to

ME NDUM OF P S AN TIES

I, INTRODUCTION In its Second Amended Cross-Complaint, filed on November 16, 2015, Aon completely ignores this Court’s decision in its October 16, 201§ Order that the covenants not to compete contained in various Aon agreements with Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants “are unenforceable pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 16600.” In spite of this clear ruling, when granted leave to amend after a demurrer to the Cross-Complaint was sustained in part in the same

October 16, 2015 Order, Cross-Complainants reasserted their allegations of breach of contract

based on the unenforceable covenants, which have been rendered meritless by the Court’s Order.

In so doing, Aon continues to pursue harassing litigation tactics designed to force Cross- | : Defendants to incur attorneys’ fees to defend baseless allegations predicated on the alleged breach l' ;, '. of unenforceable covenants. These allegations are in total disregard of the Court’s Order, and [ would force Cross-Defendants and the Court to expend time and resources addressing an issue | | that has been briefed, argued, and decided. The Court should not permit Aon to undermine its | Order or California law through this tactic, and the baseless allegations should be stricken, Accordingly, Cross-Defendants move to strike the allegations based on the unenforceable covenants not to compete on the grounds that they are not drawn in conformity with the Court’s October 16, 2015 Order or California law under Business and Professions Code section 16600. " (See Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) A. TheCourt's Order Holding the Covenajits Not to Comipy reeable; On February 25, 2014, Plaintiffs Peter Baldwin, Nicholas Bellasis, Raiph “Trey” Busch,

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE SECOND AMENDED CROSS-

these obligations and encouraged and induced the Individual Cross-Defendants to breach them.”

(1d. §141.)

Aon further alleges that Day’s 2001 Aon Stock Incentive Plan Restricted Stock Unit ~Agreement “contains substantially the same covenants and provisions set forth above with respect I 'to the 2011 Incentive Stock Agreement (J.e., Covenant Not to Solicit . .. ).” (SACC q 144.) Aon ; '; ', alleges that, based on this Agreement, Day “had knowledge of the fact that the Incentive Stock ! Plan was governed by Illinois law and contained covenants not to solicit clients . ..."” (Id.)

Aon also includes specific allegations in its Tenth Cause of Action for Breach of Contract i Incentive Stock Agreements, against Cross-Defendants Baldwin, Bellasis, Busch, Carter, Day, Droz, Edwards, and Winn, that these Individual Cross-Defendants breached the unenforceable covenants not to compete contained in the Stock Agreements. (SACC §219.) Aon further alleges that it has suffered damages “[a]s a direct and proximate result of those breaches,”

including lost business and lost profits, (/d. §220.)

M. ARGUMENT A, Standard

The Court may, upon & motion or at any time in its discretion, *“[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) Pursuant to this provision, “[a] trial court has authority to strike sham pleadings, or those not filed in conformity with its prior ruling.” (Ricard v. Grobstein, Goldman, Stevenson, Siegel, LeVine & Mangel (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 157, 162.) The grounds for the motion must appear on the face of the pleading or be subject to judicial

notice, (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)

B. The Cross-Complaingntst Allcggtions:Relating to the Non-Compete. i | Provisions Are Not in: Clonformity With 'This'Gourt’s Qctober 16. 2015 Ovder: .

| S, T | O GAIUOLAR1e8 A/ |

. The allegations in the Second Amended Cross-Complaint based on the unenforceable 'I covenants not to compete are not drawn in conformity with this Court’s Order on the Motion for f Summary Adjudication or California law under Business and Professions Code section 16600.

CROSS-DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE SECOND AMENDED CROSS-

(See Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) The Court issued its ruling on the Motion for Summary Adjudication thirty days before Cross-Complainants were required to submit their amended Cross-Complaint, in the same Order granting them leave to amend, giving them more than sufficient time and notice to remove. the improper allegations. Cross-Complainants nonetheless ignore the Court’s adverse ruling and seek to waste Cross-Defendants’ and the Court’s time and | resources litigating improper allegations based on unenforceable provisions. The allegations should be stricken as not in conformity with the Court’s prior Order or California law.

The Court has already determined that the covenants not to compete are unenforceable, | rendering any allegations based on those covenants meritless and improper pursuant to section | 16600. And, the Court rejected Cross-Complainants’ proffered defenses, including that the 1, Illinois choice of law clause should apply, that the provision falls within the purported “trade | secrets exception,” or that Plaintiffs are unable to seek relief due to unclean hands. (RJN Ex. 1,

- pp. 2-5.) Thus, Aon’s reasserted allegations based on the non-compete provisions are not in | conformity with the Court’s prior Order or California law, and they should be stricken. (See Janis - |

v, California State Lottery Com. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 824, 829 [holding allegations in an

amended complaint were properly stricken as not in conformity with the trial court’s prior ruling , i where the court had already held those allegations were without merit on a motion for summary judgment]; Connerly v. Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 739, 749, fn. 4 [where the trial court rejected the plaintiff’s assertion of standing on demurrer, it was improper for the plaintiff to “circumvent the trial court’s ruling by reinserting the overruled allegations in an amended complaint”].)

Moreover, allowing the allegations to remain in the Second Amended Cross-Complaint | will force the Court and Cross-Defendants to waste time and resources on issues the Court has already decided, The Court evaluated the parties’ volumes of briefing, evidence, separate statements, and evidentiary objections to reach its decision on the Motion for Summary Adjudication that the covenants are unenforceable. Should Aon wish to challenge the ruling,

there are procedural mechanisms for it to do so. But Aon may not simply ignore the Order by -5.

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE SECOND AMENDED CROSS-