Bowen v. Linuxcare
Filed 7/28/06 Bowen v. Linuxcare CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| MATTHEW ALLEN BOWEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LINUXCARE, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
A111569
(San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 313355) |
Plaintiff Matthew Allen Bowen appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of defendants Linuxcare, Inc. (Linuxcare), and Fernand Sarrat (Sarrat), and the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication of issues. The rulings on the cross-motions stemmed from the court's decision to uphold a release executed by plaintiff, barring plaintiff's action against defendants.[1] Plaintiff also appeals an order granting defendants' motion to quash a deposition subpoena and for a discovery protective order. We conclude that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of defendants and plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication of issues was properly denied.[2]
Background
In May 1999, plaintiff was hired by Linuxcare as an account executive. He was to receive a monthly salary of $5,416.67 plus a guaranteed nonrecoverable draw of $3,750 for the first two months of his employment, entitling him to $9,166.67 a month for the first two months of employment. Plaintiff was to report to Sarrat for the first two months and thereafter to Jim Fisher, Linuxcare's director of business development.
Plaintiff began work at Linuxcare on June 1, 1999. After working for about a week, plaintiff complained to Linuxcare's head of human resources, Phoebe Nikolakakis, that Sarrat had sexually harassed him. On June 10, plaintiff began working for Fisher. On either July 9 or July 12, plaintiff was terminated for poor job performance.[3]
Release
On July 12, 1999, at a meeting between Nikolakakis, Fisher and plaintiff, Nikolakakis presented plaintiff a written release agreement (release) she had prepared, dated that same day. After briefly reviewing the release, plaintiff requested that it be amended to include terms providing him with outplacement services and a letter of recommendation. At the conclusion of the meeting plaintiff took a copy of the release to review.
Paragraph 1 of the release stated, in part: â€
