Steven P. and Maureen Cade - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
          (6) CGC breached its statutory duty to pay petitioner the                   
          compensation due him under the employment agreement, (7) CGC, Mr.           
          Heller, Heller Seasonings, and Does 21 through 30 unlawfully                
          retained and converted to their own use petitioner’s personal               
          belongings, (8) CGC, Mr. Heller, Heller Seasonings, and Does 31             
          through 40 invaded petitioner’s privacy by inspecting and copying           
          his personal files, (9) the conduct of each defendant was                   
          outrageous and pursued to inflict severe emotional distress upon            
          petitioner, (10) CGC, CG Merger, Mr. Heller, Heller Seasonings,             
          and the Heller Trust were alter egos of each other so that each             
          of them lost his or its individuality or separateness as to each            
          other, and (11) Mr. Heller, CGC, and Does 1 through 10 published            
          defamatory statements about petitioner.                                     
               With the exception of the first, second, sixth, and seventh            
          causes of action, petitioner did not allege in his first amended            
          complaint that he suffered any specific damages as a result of              
          the asserted conduct underlying a cause of action.  The first               
          cause of action alleged that CGC’s breach of the employment                 
          agreement caused petitioner to lose salary of approximately                 
          $676,000, incentive compensation of approximately $1,250,000,               
          supplemental incentive compensation of approximately $500,000,              
          and an unspecified amount of other significant benefits.  The               
          second cause of action alleged that the named defendants’                   
          interference with the employment agreement caused petitioner to             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011