Green v. Laibco, LLC
192 Cal. App. 4th 441
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Teresa Green sued Laibco, LLC (Las Flores) for wrongful termination and FEHA retaliation after 21 years of service as activities director.
- Plaintiff claimed discharge was for her refusal to provide false information, for reporting sexual harassment, and for complaints about patient care and safety.
- Jury returned verdict for plaintiff: compensatory and punitive damages; malice/ oppression/ fraud found for punitive award.
- Las Flores moved for a new trial and for JNOV on punitive damages; the trial court granted the new trial motion.
- On appeal, the court held the new-trial order void for untimely ruling under CCP § 660 and affirmed the judgment; cross-appeal upheld sufficiency of evidence for punitive damages and of a causal link for the FEHA harassment claim.
- The appellate court remanded to determine attorney fees and costs; petition for review denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the new-trial order was timely under CCP § 660 | Green argues the 60-day period expired before ruling. | Las Flores contends timely ruling within 60 days. | New-trial order void for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of defendant’s financial condition for punitive damages | Green asserts adequate evidence of financial condition. | Las Flores contends evidence insufficient to show ability to pay. | There was meaningful evidence of financial condition supporting the punitive award. |
| Causation: whether plaintiff’s sexual harassment complaint was a motivating factor in discharge | Green's harassment complaint was a motivating factor. | Temporal proximity alone cannot prove causation; but evidence shows retaliatory conduct. | Evidence supported a causal link; FEHA claim upheld and attorney-fees issue viable. |
| Whether the FEHA punitive-damages award complied with standards for ability to pay | Award reasonable given defendant’s profits/assets. | Only net worth or precise financial condition could justify award. | Sufficient evidence of ability to pay; award not fatally defective. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105 (Cal. 1991) (requires meaningful evidence of financial condition for punitive damages)
- Baxter v. Peterson, 150 Cal.App.4th 673 (Cal. App. 2007) (net worth and liabilities guide ability to pay, not just profits)
- Liu v. Liu, 197 Cal.App.3d 143 (Cal. App. 1987) (first notice triggering 60-day period when no notice of entry has been given)
- Bunton v. Arizona Pacific Tanklines, 141 Cal.App.3d 210 (Cal. App. 1983) (timeliness of new-trial ruling under § 660)
- Rubens v. Whittemore, 2 Cal.App.2d 575 (Cal. App. 1934) (start of 60-day period when no notice of judgment served)
- Sanchez-Corea v. Bank of America, 38 Cal.3d 892 (Cal. 1985) (statutory language on when 60-day period runs discussed)
- Palmer v. GTE California, Inc., 30 Cal.4th 1265 (Cal. 2003) (discussed § 660 language and notice timing)
- Zaxis Wireless Communications, Inc. v. Motor Sound Corp., 89 Cal.App.4th 577 (Cal. App. 2001) (measure of ability to pay beyond net worth; profits and assets relevant to payability)
- Robert L. Cloud & Associates, Inc. v. Mikesell, 69 Cal.App.4th 1141 (Cal. App. 1999) (annual income alone not meaningful evidence; need wealth context)