 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davila v. Nickell10/26/2005
ver, the Davila children's attempt to characterize themselves as proper survival plaintiffs conflicts with the allegations and recovery by the Davila parents. In their joint complaint, the Davila parents alleged that they were Davila's heirs, and the Davila children did not make a similar claim. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 377.30.) Because a survival action is brought solely on behalf of the deceased individual (see Rufo v. Simpson, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at p. 616), two separate groups of plaintiffs may not recover duplicative damages on behalf of that single individual for the same damages.
IV. Additional Asserted Jury Instruction and Verdict Form Errors
The Louies contend the court erred in instructing the jury on: (1) the alter ego doctrine; (2) Davila's and Barraza's employment status; and (3) OSHA standards. We find no prejudicial error.
A. Alter Ego Instruction
1. Background information
In their complaints, plaintiffs alleged the individual owners were the alter egos of the defendant corporations (Sun Villa Inc., Joadd, and RND) and that adherence to the corporate fiction "would permit an abuse of the corporate privilege and would sanction fraud or promote injustice . . . ." Before trial, the Louies moved to bifurcate the alter ego issues, arguing the evidence would result in a "considerable waste of time" because the issue was an equitable one to be decided by the court. The court denied the motion, presumably because much of the alter ego evidence would overlap with evidence relevant to disputed liability issues.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the court told counsel it intended to decide the alter ego issue before jury instructions and closing arguments. The Louies' counsel requested that the court delay the determination until after the jury reached its verdict. The court rejected this request. In response, the Louies' counsel vigorously argued that the court should not inform the jury of its alter ego determination to avoid prejudicing the jury on related issues such as agency and joint venture. The court deferred ruling on this issue.
After permitting the parties to present argument on the alter ego issues (outside the presence of the jury), the court found the individual owners of Sun Villa Inc. and Joadd were the alter egos of the corporations, but did not indicate whether it would inform the jury of this finding. The evidence showed these corporations never issued any stock, the entities failed to adhere to corporate formalities, and the corporations lacked any meaningful capitalization. The court's alter ego finding is not challenged on appeal.
During closing arguments, plaintiffs' counsel referred to the court's alter ego determination. The first time Barraza's counsel mentioned the issue during closing argument, he stated the court's alter ego finding made the plaintiffs' "job easier." The Louies' counsel objected that there was "no jury instruction on this point regarding alter ego [doctrine]." The court overruled this objection. Barraza's counsel then told the jury that the alter ego doctrine was an equitable issue for the court to decide and the court had determined "that alter ego applied. That means we pierced the corporate veil and that the acts of the corporation . . . are acts of all of the individuals; and the acts of all of the individuals are the acts of the corporation."
The Davila plaintiffs' counsel similarly referred to the court's alter ego finding in his closing argument: "When His Honor ruled, the alter ego concept, these corporations are shams. You look to the individuals that were driving the bus of those corporations and that is who was responsible." Referring to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|