Opinion ID: 36872
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Separation Agreement

Text: 57 Rodriguez argues that the trial court erred in not dismissing Dell's Separation Agreement claim because it was filed more than four years after Dell learned of his dubious conduct. Assuming that Rodriguez preserved this claim for appeal, however, Dell's claim for breach of the Separation Agreement was clearly not barred by the relevant statute of limitations. 30 58 Rodriguez's pre-termination conduct, which underlies Dell's other claims, does not form the basis of Dell's claim for breach of the Separation Agreement. 31 Rather, this claim is grounded in Rodriguez's exercise of stock options after Dell terminated that contract. As Dell's counsel pointed out at oral argument, Rodriguez's improper pre -termination conduct underlies his counterclaim against Dell, not Dell's claim against him. Whether Dell had sole discretion to terminate Rodriguez for his behavior pre-dating the Separation Agreement is ambiguous and a matter for the court to decide on remand as we have stated above. Assuming, however, that Dell's decision was proper, there was no breach of the Separation Agreement until Rodriguez refused to accept his termination and proceeded to exercise stock options. As it is clear that (1) Dell's Separation Agreement claim is based on Rodriguez's exercise of stock options after Dell terminated that Agreement on June 26, 1998, and (2) Dell brought its claim on March 13, 2002 — less than four years after such exercise — the trial court did not err in holding that Dell's claim under the Separation Agreement is not time-barred.