Arent Fox’s employment litigation team in Los Angeles, led by partner Drew Hansen and associate Mark Phillips, won an important victory last week for the firm’s client, Applied DNA Sciences, Inc. (ADNAS), when Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Solner granted summary judgment for ADNAS in connection with 28 separate causes of action, ruling that ADNAS had not violated any written or oral agreement with the plaintiff (a former employee of the company), defamed him, violated California's Labor Code or defrauded him in any way. The court's ruling disposed of the plaintiff's case in its entirety and was entered on July 24, 2008.

In Reep v. Applied DNA Sciences, Inc., (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC345702), Judge Solner initially addressed ADNAS' objections to the vast majority of “evidence” proffered by the plaintiff and ruled that more than 20 documents the plaintiff had submitted as part of his opposition had not been properly authenticated, lacked foundation, and/or were not admissible pursuant to California Unemployment Insurance Code section 1960. Having made numerous evidentiary rulings in favor of ADNAS, Judge Solner then ruled that all of the plaintiff's claims could be disposed of as a matter of law. Specifically, with respect to the plaintiff's two breach of written contract claims, Judge Solner ruled that ADNAS did not owe the plaintiff any additional sums in connection with his employment agreement because the triggering event for the payment of severance benefits (i.e., termination of the employee) was not satisfied. The court reached the same conclusion regarding an alleged addenda to the plaintiff's employment contract. It further found that the addenda was unenforceable because it lacked consideration.

Regarding the plaintiff's breach of oral contract claim (whereby he alleged ADNAS had promised to pay his tax liability in connection with an issuance of stock), Judge Solner concluded that no such promise was ever made, there was no consideration for the alleged promise, the plaintiff knew at the time the statement was supposedly made that the person who made the promise did not have authority to bind ADNAS, and the plaintiff had not been damaged because whether he had any tax liability remained an open question.

In disposing of the plaintiff's 12 separate defamation claims, the court ruled that the statements were either never made, were true, or constituted non-actionable opinion protected by California's common interest privilege.

Judge Solner likewise disposed of the plaintiff's 11 separate fraud claims, reasoning that there was no admissible evidence that the statements had ever been made, that the plaintiff could not reasonably rely upon the alleged misrepresentations, and/or the statements were true at the time they were allegedly made to the plaintiff.

Finally, Judge Solner concluded that ADNAS complied with California's Labor Code because it paid the plaintiff all wages he was due under his employment agreement at the time he stopped working for the company.

Associates Charles Rullman and Alex Smart worked with Drew and Mark to bring about this win.

Drew R. Hansen
hansen.drew@arentfox.com
213.443.7536

Mark R. Phillips
phillips.mark@arentfox.com
213.443.7537