 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garcia v. Brick Container Corp.9/20/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, appellant, and cross-respondent Alice Garcia (Garcia) filed an action against defendants, respondents, and cross-appellants Brick Container Corporation (BCC) and George Shumaker (Shumaker) (together defendants) asserting causes of action for failure to prevent harassment and discrimination (only against BCC), sexual harassment and wrongful termination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), sexual harassment and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendants obtained summary judgment in their favor. Garcia appeals from that judgment.
As the prevailing parties on the motion for summary judgment, defendants filed a motion for attorney fees in the amount of $93,173 under section 12965, subdivision (b). The trial court denied the motion. Defendants cross-appeal, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award them attorney fees. In response to defendants' cross-appeal, Garcia filed a motion in this court for sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal.
Both appeals are premised, in part, on a ruling by the trial court on March 10, 2004. Neither party provided us with a reporter's transcript for that date. We asked the parties to discuss whether their failure to provide us with a reporter's transcript warranted affirmance on the appeal and cross-appeal based on the inadequacy of the record. Garcia subsequently moved to augment the record to include the missing reporter's transcript. We granted her motion.
We hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to Garcia's entire action instead of granting summary adjudication only as to her causes of action for wrongful termination and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Shumaker. Garcia may not maintain an action against Shumaker for wrongful termination because Shumaker was not Garcia's employer. Garcia has abandoned her negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action against Shumaker. Triable issues of material fact surround each of Garcia's remaining causes of action. Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment except as to Garcia's causes of action for wrongful termination and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Shumaker (second, third, and "sixth" causes of action). We affirm summary adjudication as to those causes of action. Because we hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to the claims against BCC, BCC is no longer a prevailing party and, thus, is not eligible for an award of attorney fees. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not awarding Shumaker his attorney fees. We decline to impose sanctions as requested by Garcia.
BACKGROUND
Garcia worked as an administrative assistant in BCC's human resources department for a period just over nine months from June 2000 to March 9, 2001. She alleges that during the course of her employment Shumaker, BCC's marketing manager, frequently made inappropriate comments to her, touched her in inappropriate ways, and engaged in inappropriate conduct in her presence. According to Garcia, Shumaker's actions, taken together, ultimately forced her to leave her employment with BCC.
It should be noted that the t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|