Plaintiff olive grower challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County (California), which granted summary judgment for defendant olive processor because plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies under Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 55401 et seq. Plaintiff's claims against defendant included breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Nakase Law Firm litigates workplace harassment
Overview
Plaintiff olive grower brought an action against defendant olive processor for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, determining that it lacked jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies of Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 55401 et seq. On appeal, the court reversed and held that the administrative remedy was cumulative to the judicial remedy, not exclusive. The court reasoned that Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 55437, was virtually identical to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1752 and 1942.5(h), both of which provided that their remedies were in addition to judicial remedies. The court held that because a common law remedy preexisted Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 55437, the statutory remedy was cumulative, and plaintiff could elect either the statutory or common law remedy.
Outcome
The court reversed the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of defendant olive processor in plaintiff's action for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Because plaintiff olive grower's judicial remedy was cumulative to the administrative remedy, he was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing his judicial action.
