Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc.
183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 150
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Wilfredo Velasquez worked at Gold Coast handling diacetyl; he later developed bronchiolitis obliterans and sued distributors including Centrome, Inc. (Advanced) alleging diacetyl exposure caused his lung disease.
- Advanced supplied ~80% of Gold Coast’s diacetyl and provided MSDSs warning diacetyl is "harmful by inhalation"; industry and regulatory limits were sparse or postdated Velasquez’s employment.
- At pretrial and Section 402 hearings, dispute arose over whether Velasquez’s undocumented immigration status was admissible as relevant to his claimed future need for a lung transplant.
- The trial court initially ruled immigration status would be admissible and announced to the venire that Velasquez was not legally in the U.S.; later the court reversed course and excluded immigration evidence after experts testified UNOS policy precludes considering residency.
- Velasquez moved repeatedly for a mistrial based on the court’s disclosure to jurors; motions were denied. Jury returned special verdicts finding Advanced negligent but not a substantial factor in causing harm; judgment entered and Velasquez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by informing venire of plaintiff’s undocumented status | Velasquez: immigration status was irrelevant to liability or damages and highly prejudicial; jurors should not have been told | Advanced: status relevant to whether plaintiff would be eligible for a future lung transplant; evidence admissible for that limited purpose | Court: Error — immigration status was irrelevant or only marginally relevant and highly prejudicial; voir dire disclosure was improper |
| Whether Plaintiff invited error or forfeited claim by not accepting curative instruction | Advanced: Velasquez invited disclosure or waived by declining curative instruction | Velasquez: court-initiated disclosure followed Section 402 testimony; he sought exclusion and did not induce error | Court: No invited error or forfeiture; appellate review allowed |
| Whether denial of mistrial was proper after disclosure | Velasquez: disclosure irreparably prejudiced his right to fair trial; mistrial required | Advanced: court thoroughly vetted jurors and panel was fair; denial within discretion | Court: Denial was error; given prejudicial nature of disclosure, mistrial should have been granted and reversal is warranted |
| Whether nonsuit on common-law negligence should be reversed | Velasquez: (not argued on appeal) | Advanced: plaintiff failed to introduce evidence of industry standard of care — required element | Court: Affirmed nonsuit on common-law negligence (no evidence of standard of care) |
Key Cases Cited
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (doctrine of invited error and estoppel)
- Rodriguez v. Kline, 186 Cal.App.3d 1145 (immigration status irrelevant in personal injury absent wage-earning claims)
- People v. Scheid, 16 Cal.4th 1 (test of relevance and reasonable inference)
- People v. Babbitt, 45 Cal.3d 660 (trial court has wide discretion on relevance but no discretion to admit irrelevant evidence)
- Petrosyan v. Prince Corp., 223 Cal.App.4th 587 (mistrial warranted when error too serious to be corrected)