This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations

Prostar Wireless Group, LLC v. Domino's Pizza Inc.

Published: Feb. 22, 2019 | Result Date: Dec. 28, 2018 |

Case number: 3:16-cv-05399-WHO Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

William H. Orrick III

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Darius C. Ogloza
(Ogloza Fortney LLP)

David C. Fortney
(Ogloza Fortney LLP)

Micah D. Nash
(Ogloza Fortney LLP)


Defendant

Jeffrey E. Faucette
(Skaggs Faucette LLP)

Daniel F. Katz
(Williams & Connolly LLP)

Edward D. Barnidge
(Williams & Connolly LLP)

Janine M. Pierson
(Williams & Connolly LLP)

Matthew W. Lachman
(Williams & Connolly LLP)

Shauna M. Kramer
(Williams & Connolly LLP)


Facts

Prostar Wireless Group LLC filed a lawsuit against Domino's Pizza Inc. in relation to its GPS driver tracking system.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Prostar contended that it spent years developing a custom GPS driver tracking system for Domino's franchisees. Prostar claimed that Domino's did not allow it to sell the tracking system to franchisees as agreed. Additionally, Prostar contended that Domino's relied on its work to develop an in-house system. Prostar sued for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied in fact contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and other claims.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Domino's denied the contentions and contended that it was entitled to summary judgment on the merits of all the causes of action.

Result

The court granted Domino's motion for summary judgment. The court determined that the breach of fiduciary duty claim failed, finding there was no evidence that Prostar and Domino's expressly agreed to being a joint venture. Additionally, any agreement the parties could have reached would be too vague to provide a basis for its enforcement, and therefore, the breach of implied in fact contract claim failed and in turn, the breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing followed suit.


#131030

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390