Procedural Posture
Appellant employees sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict to respondent employer, development board, and supervisor, in an action for employment discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 12900 et seq. The appellant had its civil defense attorney Riverside CA make objections that were questionable and overruled.
Overview
In an action against respondent employer, development board, and supervisor, for employment discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 12900 et seq., the jury rendered a special verdict for appellant employees, finding that respondents had committed no discriminatory, racially harassing, or retaliatory conduct, nor had they inflicted severe emotional distress on appellants, but awarding noneconomic and punitive damages to appellants. The trial court granted respondents' motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the court affirmed holding that the jury's special verdict was too inconsistent to be enforced. The court held that the verdict did not include an essential foundational predicate of harassment or discrimination, as required by the statutory scheme to support a finding of violation of § 12940(i), and the noneconomic and punitive damages that were awarded by the jury lacked support in the record.
Outcome
Order granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict to respondent employer, development board, and supervisor, in an action for employment discrimination by appellant employees affirmed because the jury's verdict was too inconsistent to be enforced where the verdict did not include an essential foundational predicate of the discrimination as required by the statute.
Procedural Posture
In a case brought by the People against defendant tobacco company to enforce a consent decree and final judgment entered on a master settlement agreement, the company appealed from an order of the San Diego County Superior Court, California, awarding attorney fees to the People.
Overview
The tobacco company argued the trial court erred by finding Civ. Code, § 1717, inapplicable to the consent decree's unilateral attorney fees clause in favor of the People. The company asserted that under the correct legal standard, it prevailed or neither party prevailed, given the People's limited success. The court concluded that § 1717 applied to the consent decree, and that the trial court used an incorrect legal standard in determining the People were the prevailing parties. The statute reserved for the trial court a measure of discretion to find no prevailing party when the results of the litigation were mixed, and the results here were mixed. The trial court's ruling was based on an erroneous finding that § 1717 was inapplicable. Section 1717 authorized an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party at prevailing market rates. Under § 1717, the prevailing party would be entitled to reasonable fees, meaning the rates prevailing in the community for similar work.
Outcome
The order awarding attorney fees was reversed, and the case was remanded with directions to reconsider the attorney fees issue.
