“Yet all [Hooters] did as the moving party was present the declaration of its franchise business director stating that he had received Garcia’s complaints and initiated an investigation into her allegations,” the panel said.
Showing that Hooters had knowledge of certain facts doesn’t mean Hooters has shown that it lacked knowledge of other, unmentioned facts, it said.
“Likewise, the record does not show that HOA presented any evidence to negate each theory of substantial assistance alleged in the operative complaint,” the panel said.
Thus, the trial court didn’t err in denying summary adjudication on that claim, the panel said.
As for the unfair competition claim, “the parties concede, and we agree, that this cause of action is merely derivative of the [aiding and abetting cause of action] in the context of this case,” it added.
Judges Richard T. Fields, Manuel Ramirez and Frank J. Menetrez sat on the panel for the Fourth Appellate District.
Hooters is represented by Mark F. Lovell and Carlos Bacio of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC.
