Patron Spirits Internat. v. Singh
Ajendra Singh was employed by Patrón Spirits International, A.G. (Patron), a producer and distributor of premium tequila. In 2003, Singh was allegedly promised an extraordinary bonus, based on the value of the company, if he remained with the company for an additional five years. In 2008, shortly after the five year period was completed, Singh’s employment was terminated, purportedly for sexual harassment of, and abusive conduct toward, his subordinates. Thereafter, Singh asserted a claim to the promised bonus. Patron brought the instant action for declaratory relief, seeking a declaration that it owes Singh nothing. Singh filed a cross-complaint against Patron and John Paul DeJoria, the Patron officer who allegedly promised him the bonus, for breach of contract and other causes of action. In Singh’s cross-complaint, he sought payment of the bonus.[1]
Patron sought summary judgment on the basis of a statement Singh had made in an unrelated case in 2006. In the course of a dispute regarding the ownership of Patron, Singh submitted a sworn affidavit in which he stated that the promised bonus had been only a possibility, and that no plan to pay him the bonus had ever been formalized. In light of this admission, the trial court granted summary judgment. On appeal, Singh contends that, while this admission may constitute evidence against him to be weighed at trial, it does not justify entry of summary judgment in light of his subsequent declaration and other evidence to the contrary. We conclude that neither the doctrine of judicial estoppel nor the doctrine of D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1 (D’Amico) applies to give Singh’s 2006 declaration conclusive effect in this case, and therefore reverse.
In addition, Singh challenges the order of the trial court disqualifying his counsel. Singh’s attorney was disqualified on the basis that he, and his prior law firm, previously represented Patron. As we conclude that Patron has failed to establish that Singh’s chosen counsel was in a position to have obtained confidential information from Patron relevant to this matter, we reverse the disqualification order.
Comments on Patron Spirits Internat. v. Singh