Jennings v. Senao Internat.
Filed 7/14/06 Jennings v. Senao Internat. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| EDWARD JENNINGS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SENAO INTERNATIONAL/ENGENIUS et al., Defendants and Appellants. | G033590 (Super. Ct. No. 02CC01022) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald L. Bauer, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
A. Thomas Hunt; Law Offices of Jonathan W. Biddle and Jonathan W. Biddle, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Morrison & Foerster, Janie Schulman and Michael S. Chamberlin, for Defendants and Appellants.
Edward Jennings sued his former employer, EnGenius Technologies Inc, its parent corporation, Senao International Co. Ltd., and others (collectively Senao), alleging causes of action arising out of (1) the breach of an alleged agreement to pay Jennings a bonus sufficient to purchase a home; and (2) his wrongful termination. EnGenius cross-complained, alleging, among other things, that Jennings defrauded it by seeking â€
