Touchstone Television Productions v. Superior Court
145 Cal. Rptr. 3d 766
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Touchstone hired Sheridan for Desperate Housewives with an exclusive option to renew for up to six seasons; Touchstone renewed through seasons 2–5.
- An incident in Sept 2008 between Sheridan and Cherry allegedly involved battery; Sheridan complained about Cherry’s conduct.
- In Feb 2009 Touchstone informed Sheridan it would not exercise the option for season 6, paying for season 5 as contracted.
- Sheridan sued in April 2010 for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, battery, and related claims.
- At trial, the battery claim was directed verdict for Cherry/Touchstone; the wrongful termination claim was deadlocked and a mistrial declared; Daly-style nonrenewal issue was raised.
- The court granted a writ directing a directed verdict in Touchstone’s favor on wrongful termination and allowed Sheridan to amend to plead a §6310(b) claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can nonrenewal of a fixed-term contract support a wrongful-termination claim? | Sheridan argues not renewing is termination-in-disguise. | Touchstone argues nonrenewal is expiration, not termination. | No; nonrenewal is not termination; amend to §6310(b) claim. |
| Does Daly limit wrongful-termination recovery to fixed-term nonrenewal cases? | Daly supports tort claim for public-policy violation. | Daly bar applies; nonrenewal cannot be tortious termination. | Daly applies; remedy lies in §6310(b) instead. |
| Should Sheridan be allowed to amend to add §6310(b) claim? | Narrowed issue should permit amendment. | Writ proceeding does not foreclose amendment in trial court. | Court may permit amendment to allege §6310(b) claim. |
| Is the retaliation theory by itself sufficient to sustain a §6310(b) claim? | Retaliation for complaints about unsafe conditions supports §6310(b). | Factual sufficiency for §6310(b) must be decided at trial. | Irrelevant to writ; trial court to resolve in §6310(b) context. |
| Is the analogy to at-will termination applicable where a fixed-term contract expires? | Termination theory should apply like at-will discharge. | Not applicable; contract expires by its own terms. | Inapplicable; remedy limited to §6310(b) for discrimination upon nonrenewal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daly v. Exxon Corp., 55 Cal.App.4th 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (nonrenewal of fixed-term contract not tortious termination; §6310 remedy available)
- Tollefson v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 219 Cal.App.3d 843 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (fixed-term employment ends by expiration; no tort for nonrenewal)
- Motevalli v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 122 Cal.App.4th 97 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (no tort for nonrenewal of fixed-term contract in public policy)
- Schimmel v. NORCAL Mutual Ins. Co., 39 Cal.App.4th 1282 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (analogy to at-will termination not dispositive; fixed-term context)
- Daly v. Exxon Corp., 55 Cal.App.4th 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (leading case on nonrenewal under public policy)
- Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal., Inc., 68 Cal.App.4th 101 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (good-faith complaint about unsafe conditions supports §6310(b))