Mattel v. Brawer
Filed 5/24/06 Mattel v. Brawer CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
MATTEL, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RONALD BRAWER, Defendant and Respondent. | B183132 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 323381) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph R Kalin. (Retired judge of the L.A. Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed and remanded with directions.
Munger, Tolles & Olson, Lawrence C. Barth; Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker and Glenn D. Dassoff for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Littler Mendelson, Douglas A. Wickham and Sabrina A. Beldner for Defendant and Respondent.
__________________________
SUMMARY
A trial court did not err in sustaining an executive's demurrer to his former employer's initial complaint for declaratory relief, where the complaint failed to allege an actual or present controversy. However, it erred in denying the employer an opportunity to amend its complaint to attempt to cure certain defects and state a previously unasserted claim for declaratory relief.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On this appeal taken from sustaining a demurrer, we recite the facts alleged in the complaint. (BKHN, Inc. v. Department of Health Services (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 301, 305.) Respondent Ronald Brawer became an employee of appellant Mattel, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (Mattel), in 1997 when his former employer, Tyco Toys, Inc. (Tyco), merged with Mattel. Brawer's employment with Tyco was governed by a written â€
