 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mittal v. Sood4/9/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
I. Introduction
Shashi Sood (cross-defendant) appeals from an order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Chander Mittal, CM Automotive Systems, Inc. (CMAS), Manav Engineering Corporation, Sameer Investments, Inc., Auto Safe Devices, Inc., and Allied Services and Spares, Inc. (cross-complainants) on their cross-complaint. We find no clear abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the order.
II. Background
Cross-defendant and Mr. Mittal are both of Indian heritage. Cross-defendant is a certified public accountant. Cross-defendant worked under contract for cross-complainants from 1993-2000. Cross-complainants fired cross-defendant in August 2000.
Cross-defendant sued cross-complainants for fraud, contract breach, wrongful termination, and a violation of the Labor Code with respect to accrued compensation. Cross-complainants cross-complained alleging, among other things, that: cross-defendant had devised and orchestrated numerous tax schemes to cross-complainants' detriment; cross-defendant had undertaken the practice of law without a license; and cross-defendant had facilitated the embezzlement by a third party of $900,000 from an affiliated company. The twelfth cause of action of the cross-complaint, for conversion of personal property, alleged cross-defendant had: wrongfully retained and converted cross-complainants' business and corporate records, stationary, checks, and signature stamps; forged documents; and negotiated checks to cross-complainants' damage. Cross-complainants sought injunctive relief as well as damages as to that alleged misconduct. Cross-complainants filed a motion for a preliminary injunction which sought two orders. First, defendant sought to prevent cross-defendant from disclosing financial information obtained during the course of his professional engagement. Second, the preliminary injunction request sought an order that required cross-defendant to turn over cross-complainants' records.
The evidence in support of the motion was as follows. Mr. Mittal had given cross-defendant, a "trusted accountant," "keys to the business premises, access to checks, records, stationary and the combination to the company safe." Cross-defendant also had access to a stamp bearing Mr. Mittal's signature. Cross-complainants fired cross-defendant. Upon being fired, cross-defendant took "the original business books and records" of Mr. Mittal and several companies, "including but not limited to corporate filings, books, records, stationary and the like." The records included those belonging to companies affiliated with Mr. Mittal. Mr. Mittal requested that cross-defendant return the aforementioned items. Cross-defendant failed and refused to do so.
Mr. Mittal explained the necessity of a preliminary injunction as follows: "Unless a preliminary injunction is granted great and irreparable injury will result to me in that [cross-defendant] has failed and refused to turn over to me all the original books, records, business filings and tax returns for myself [and the affiliated companies]. [ ] Since the inception of this case I have become aware from an employee of CMAS, Carlos Vittier, that [cross-defendant] intends to take the original books and records he has in his possession to the Internal Revenue Service, State Franchise Tax Board and other taxing authorities. [ ] Furt
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|