Foulkes v. Quest Software
Filed 3/3/06 Foulkes v. Quest Software CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| JANE PRICE FOULKES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. QUEST SOFTWARE et al., Defendants and Respondents. | G035329 (Super. Ct. No. 00CC05779) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregory Munoz, Judge. Affirmed. Motion for sanctions. Denied.
Davis & Heubeck, Joseph Daniel Davis; Charlotte E. Costan; Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson, Mark Robinson, Kevin Calcagnie; Saltzburg, Ray & Bergman and Henley L. Saltzburg for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Todd E. Gordinier, John F. Cannon, Marc J. Schneider and Jennifer A. Lopez for Defendants and Respondents.
* * *
Introduction
The only question on this appeal is whether the Orange County Superior Court abused its discretion in dismissing Jane Price Foulkes's complaint, rather than staying it to permit Foulkes, more than eight years after her claims arose, to file an action for the first time in the contractually agreed upon forum – England. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and affirm the judgment.
Procedural History
Foulkes sued Quest Software, Inc., Doran Geoffrey Machin, David Michael Doyle, and Vincent C. Smith (collectively Quest) for violation of the unfair competition law, fraud and deceit, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and money had and received. Quest moved pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 410.30 and 418.10 to stay or dismiss the complaint based on the forum selection clauses included in a series of written agreements between the parties. The trial court denied the motion, and this court denied Quest's petition for a writ of mandate. The case proceeded, and judgment was ultimately entered against Foulkes and in favor of Quest. Foulkes appealed from the judgment, and Quest cross-appealed from the order denying the motion to stay or dismiss. We reversed the judgment, and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to grant the motion to stay or dismiss. (Foulkes v. Quest Software, Inc. (Sept. 22, 2004, G032395) [nonpub. opn.] (Foulkes I).) We specifically directed the trial court to use its discretion in determining whether to stay or dismiss the complaint. (Ibid.)
On remand, the trial court initially dismissed Foulkes's complaint without briefing or a hearing. Foulkes moved to vacate the judgment and requested a hearing. The court granted a hearing. Following briefing and a hearing, the court denied Foulkes's motion to vacate the judgment in a minute order reading, in relevant part: â€
