Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitbreach of contractplaintiffdefendanttrialpleasummary judgmentimplied contract

contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendanttrialsummary judgmentimplied contract

Related Cases

Marchibroda v. Demoff, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2013 WL 6638501

Facts

Ted Marchibroda, Jr. and Marvin Demoff were contract advisors certified by the NFLPA. In 2006, Demoff entered into a representation agreement with Chad Greenway, a top college football player, after Marchibroda had met with Greenway and suggested Demoff as an agent. Marchibroda later sought compensation from Demoff for his role in persuading Greenway to sign with him. In 2009, Marchibroda also contacted Demoff regarding Alex Mack, another college player, who subsequently signed with Demoff. Marchibroda filed a lawsuit against Demoff for breach of contract, claiming he was owed fees for both players.

In 2005, Marchibroda and Demoff were contract advisors certified by the National Football League Players' Association (NFLPA). In December 2005 and January 2006, Marchibroda and Demoff jointly met with Chad Greenway, who was then ranked as a top college football player and a potential pick in the first round of the upcoming NFL draft.

Issue

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Demoff and Demoff Sports Group, Inc. regarding Marchibroda's claims for breach of contract?

Rule

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment if the record establishes that none of the plaintiff's asserted causes of action can prevail. The moving party must make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact, shifting the burden to the opposing party to show that a triable issue exists. The court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party.

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment if the record establishes as a matter of law that none of the plaintiff's asserted causes of action can prevail. [Citation.]

Analysis

The court found that Marchibroda's claims were based on an alleged oral contract with Demoff regarding compensation for services rendered in persuading Greenway and Mack to sign with Demoff. However, the court concluded that Marchibroda's services were performed before any agreement was made, thus lacking consideration. Additionally, the court noted that Marchibroda did not adequately plead the existence of implied contracts, which were necessary to support his claims.

The court concluded that the purported Greenway-related contract failed for want of consideration, and that there were no triable issues of fact regarding the existence of the alleged Mack-related contract.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Demoff and Demoff Sports Group, Inc., concluding that Marchibroda's claims were not supported by sufficient legal grounds.

We agree that summary judgment was proper on Marchibroda's claims, as his complaint failed to allege facts supporting the implied contracts upon which he now relies.

Who won?

Demoff and Demoff Sports Group, Inc. prevailed in this case because the court found that Marchibroda's claims were not supported by adequate legal grounds. The court determined that there was no enforceable contract between Marchibroda and Demoff regarding the compensation for services related to Greenway and Mack, as the services were rendered before any agreement was made, thus lacking consideration. Furthermore, Marchibroda failed to plead the existence of implied contracts that could have supported his claims.

The court concluded that 'Demoff's fee splitting offer … under the facts alleged, was a gift, because there was no bargained-for exchange.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Quinn v. Mississippi State University, 720 So.2d 843, 130 Ed. Law Rep. 1362

City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 83 Cal.App.5th 458, 299 Cal.Rptr.3d 463, 2022 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9962

Franks v. Kentucky School for the Deaf, 956 F.Supp. 741, 117 Ed. Law Rep. 148

Shields v. Morgan Financial, Inc., 130 Wash.App. 750, 125 P.3d 164

Fish v. Los Angeles Dodgers Baseball Club, 56 Cal.App.3d 620, 128 Cal.Rptr. 807, 91 A.L.R.3d 1