 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Constancio v. County of San Joaquin10/30/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Three plaintiffs, who were employees of San Joaquin County (County), sued the County and individual supervisors for, among other causes of action, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), including harassment and discrimination based on race. A jury returned special verdicts finding the defendants liable to the plaintiffs on those theories and assessing damages. The jury also returned a special verdict finding the County did not wrongfully terminate one of the plaintiffs, Frank Constancio. The trial court granted the motion of an individual defendant, Dan Bava, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but otherwise entered judgment according to its interpretation of the special verdicts. The court also awarded the plaintiffs $231,945 in attorney fees.
The defendants appeal. They assert instructional error, defects in the special verdicts and the way the trial court interpreted the verdicts, evidentiary error, lack of substantial evidence, and abuse of discretion in awarding attorney fees. Plaintiff Dorothy Beattie also appeals. She asserts the trial court improperly granted defendant Bava's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
We conclude the trial court erred in interpreting the award of damages in the special verdicts and modify the judgment to reflect the proper interpretation of the verdicts. Finding no other prejudicial error, we affirm the judgment as modified.
DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENT OF FACTS
An appellant must include in the opening brief "a summary of significant facts limited to matters in the record." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 14(a)(2)(C).) Here, the defendants failed to provide a complete and cohesive summary of the significant facts. Although they spread several facts, with citations to the record, throughout their briefs, at no point do they provide the details of material facts leading to the judgment against them. As will be seen, this can, among other things, adversely affect an appellant's ability to show prejudice or argue that the evidence is insufficient.
We will not comb the record, which includes a reporter's transcript containing more than 900 pages, to determine the facts of this case in order to resolve the defendants' contentions on appeal. (See Green v. Green (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 31, 35 [refusing to search record for evidence when appellant failed to provide proper statement of facts].) Accordingly, where a full understanding of the material facts is required to resolve a contention, we will note the defendants' failure to provide a proper factual statement and move on.
DISCUSSION
I. Instruction Concerning "Cause"
The defendants contend the trial court erred by not defining the word "cause" in its instructions concerning intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of the FEHA. (See BAJI No. 3.76.)
While the defendants assert "cause" is defined "in its own particular way" and that the lack of any instruction about the legal definition of cause "left the jury to make decisions on its own without proper instruction," the defendants do not attempt to show that the jury defined "cause" in any way that is inconsistent with the legal definition. Instead, the defendants simply maintain that the lack of a definition for the word "
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|