Vondjidis v. Hewlett Packard Corp. 11/25/08 CA6

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2009 » Vondjidis v. Hewlett Packard Corp. 11/25/08 CA6

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: H030806

Case Date: 02/18/2009

Preview:Filed 11/25/08

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ALEXANDER VONDJIDIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HEWLETT PACKARD CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent.

H030806 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV815388)

Plaintiff Alexander Vondjidis was employed by defendant Hewlett Packard Corporation (HP) at HP's Athens, Greece office in the 1970s. He purchased shares in HP through HP's employee stock purchase plan. Vondjidis left HP's employment in 1978. Although HP was aware of Vondjidis's Athens home address, which Vondjidis had provided to HP in writing when he purchased his shares, HP listed HP's Athens, Greece office as Vondjidis's shareholder address of record. After HP closed its Athens office around 1982, Vondjidis ceased receiving any shareholder mailings from HP. Vondjidis continued to maintain the same Athens home address. Vondjidis never inquired about the lack of communication. In 1993, HP transferred Vondjidis's shares to the State of California (the State) as unclaimed property. Vondjidis learned of this transfer in 2001, recovered some money from the State, and sued HP. The superior court granted HP's summary judgment motion on the ground that HP was immune from liability under California's statutory scheme for the transfer of unclaimed property to the State.

2 On appeal, Vondjidis contends that HP did not establish that it was entitled to this immunity. He claims that the immunity does not apply where the transferor was actually aware of the property owner's home address when it transferred the property to the State. HP maintains that compliance with the statutory scheme is not required to claim the immunity, that it established that it had complied with the statutory scheme and therefore was entitled to the immunity, and that the superior court's ruling may be upheld on the alternative ground that Vondjidis's action was barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse the judgment. We hold that no statutory immunity is available under Title 10 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the absence of compliance with Title 10's statutory scheme, that HP failed to establish that it had complied with the statutory scheme, and that HP has not demonstrated that it was entitled to summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds.

I. Undisputed Facts Vondjidis, a Greek citizen, was employed by HP as an engineer at HP's Athens, Greece office from March 1974 to October 1978. Vondjidis lived in Athens at the time. Vondjidis purchased 17 shares of HP stock through HP's employee stock purchase plan (SPP). When Vondjidis initiated his SPP stock purchases, he filled out an application to participate in the SPP on which he provided HP with his Athens home address. It was HP's practice to send mailings related to stock purchased through the SPP by an employee working abroad to the foreign office at which the employee worked. If the employee left HP's employment, HP's position was that "[t]he former employee was responsible for providing a new address of record for all future mailings relating to their HP stock. If the former employee failed to provide a new address of record, shareholder mailings continued to be sent to the HP foreign office. HP's transfer agent was required to use this address of record until the former employee provided a new one in writing."

3 While Vondjidis was employed by HP, all communications relating to his HP shares were sent from HP's California office to Vondjidis at HP's Athens office, which HP had listed as Vondjidis's shareholder address of record. After he terminated his employment with HP, these communications continued to be sent to Vondjidis at HP's Athens office, and HP employees there forwarded these communications to Vondjidis's Athens home address. He never received any communications from HP at any address other than HP's Athens office or his Athens home address. In December 1978, HP sent a change of address form to Vondjidis. He did not complete the change of address form. In August 1979, Vondjidis received a note from an HP employee at HP's Athens office along with his stock dividend check. The note said (in Greek): "Alex, hi. [

Download Vondjidis v. Hewlett Packard Corp. 11/25/08 CA6.pdf