 |
"> |
 |
|
STEPHEN KLAASS, Plaintiff, vs. RATIONAL SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. No. GIC 769666 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, AT SAN DIEGO November 21, 2002, Decided DISPOSITION: COUNSEL: William E. Hannum III of Schwartz Hannum PC, Andover, Massachusetts, is counsel for the Defendants, Rational Software Corporation. JUDGES: OPINION BY: OPINION: Defendant RATIONAL SOFTWARE CORPORATION'S motion for summary is GRANTED. The court interprets the contract to require that the 30 day option period began to run only after notice of the termination. It is undisputed that plaintiff received notice of his termination on January 29, 2001, at the latest, and that he also received notice of the 30 day period to exercise his stock options. Separate Statement at ¶¶ 19, 21 and 25. Therefore, the 30 day period began to run on January 29th, at the latest, and expired at the end of February. However, plaintiff did not attempt to exercise his stock options until June 22, 2001, despite the fact that he was represented by counsel. Separate Statement at ¶¶ 26 and 32. Plaintiff has failed to cite any authority finding that late notice of termination extends an option period indefinitely. Also, plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence suggesting that defendant should be estopped from relying on the expiration of the notice period as a defense, or that defendant waived the notice period. Simons v. Young (1979) Cal. App.3d 170, 178. The only evidence that has been presented strongly suggests that plaintiff failed to exercise his options prior to February 28, 2001 as a result of his own inadvertence and neglect. Id. at 179. Plaintiff's objection to paragraphs 19 and 22 of the Separate Statement are overruled, as the deposition testimony of Barbara Reifin supports the fact that the letter was mailed via certified mail. A true and correct copy of the Court's telephonic ruling is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The court declines to make further rulings on specific objections. Rather, any evidence cited in support of the court's ruling herein is deemed admissible, and any objection made to that evidence is considered overruled. The court disregards all evidence it considered to be incompetent and inadmissible. On October 25, 2002, the Court heard oral argument from counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant on the above issues and affirmed its ruling on Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Defendant Rational Software Corporation is entitled to judgment on the claims against it brought in this action. IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant Rational Software Corporation is entitled to judgment against Plaintiff Stephen Klaass as to the claims against Defendant brought in this action and finding that Plaintiff has no cause of action based upon the allegations of his Superior Court complaint as a matter of law. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that as the prevailing party, Defendant Rational Software Corporation is entitled to recovery of costs in the sum of $ . Dated: 11/21 , 2002 /s/ S. Charles Wickersham
|
|||