Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV20598, Date: 2025-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20598    Hearing Date: April 18, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff Cecilia Arevalo filed this employment discrimination action against Defendant Adir International, LLC.

            The action came on for trial between January 27, 2025 and February 3, 2025. The jury returned a special verdict finding that: (1) Defendant did not terminate Plaintiff based on her age, medical condition, or disability; (2) Defendant did not terminate Plaintiff based on her reporting of a disability or request for accommodation; (3) Defendant did not fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation; (4) Defendant did not fail to provide reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s disability; and (5) Defendant did not refuse to participate in an interactive process.

            However, after answering “No” to Question No. 3 regarding disability discrimination, the special verdict form erroneously directed the jurors to answer Question No. 6, asking whether Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm. The jurors answered “Yes” to Question No. 6. As a result of that, the jurors were directed to answer Question No. 19 by calculating Plaintiff’s damages. The jurors found total damages of $6,329.

            On March 6, 2025, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $6,329, plus costs and attorney’s fees to be determined by the Court.

            On March 21, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion to set aside the judgment, or alternatively, for judgment notwithstanding verdict. Plaintiff filed her opposition on April 1, 2025. Defendant filed its reply on April 11, 2025.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A judgment or decree, when based upon a decision by the court, or the special verdict of a jury, may, upon motion of the party aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and different judgment entered, for either of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a different judgment:

1. Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts; and in such case when the judgment is set aside, the statement of decision shall be amended and corrected.

2. A judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 663.)

DISCUSSION

I. The Simgel Case Demonstrates that Judgment Should be in Favor of Defendant

Simgel Co., Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 305 is directly on point. In that case, “[t]he jury in a ‘lemon law’ case answered special verdict questions that determined a car manufacturer (defendant) had no liability for breach of express warranty or for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.” (Id. at p. 309.) “But there was a mistake in the special verdict form.” (Ibid.) “The verdict form did not tell the jury if they found no breach of warranty, they should stop and answer no further questions. So the jury went on to a subsequent question, which asked if plaintiffs revoked acceptance within a reasonable time, and the jury answered, ‘Yes.’ The jury also went on to answer questions about damages.” (Ibid.) As a result, “[j]udgment was entered on the special verdict, awarding damages to plaintiffs.” (Ibid.) The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment and enter a different judgment in defendant’s favor, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. (Id. at pp. 309-10.)

            In these circumstances, the court found that both conditions under Code of Civil Procedure section 663 were met, justifying vacating the judgment. (Simgel, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 315.) That is, “[t]he original judgment rests on an erroneous legal basis, and it is not consistent with the facts found by the jury.” (Ibid.) This is because “there can be no damages where there is no liability.” (Id. at p. 316.) Having found the manufacturer not liable for breach of warranty, the jury should have never awarded damages. (Ibid.)

            This is also precisely what occurred here. The jury answered “No” to all of the liability questions. The jury found that Defendant did not terminate Plaintiff based on a protected characteristic, did not terminate Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity, did not fail to prevent discrimination/retaliation, did not fail to provide reasonable accommodation, and did not fail to engage in an interactive process. In other words, the jury found Defendant not liable on each cause of action. Because “there can be no damages where there is no liability,” the jury should never have awarded damages. (See Simgel, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 316.) Like in Simgel, the jury erroneously answered a question on damages due to a mistake on the special verdict form. Like in Simgel, this warrants vacating the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663.  

II. Both Conditions of Section 663 Have Been Met

Plaintiff argues that the conditions under section 663 have not been met because: (i) the judgment precisely matches the jury verdict, so there is no inconsistency; and (ii) Defendant relies on the speculative and inadmissible declaration of the presiding juror.

However, the court in Simgel found that both conditions of section 663 had been met under nearly identical facts. (Simgel, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 315.) In considering a motion under section 663, the court’s task is not to simply compare the judgment with the special verdict form. Rather, “[t]he judge has the responsibility to interpret the verdict ‘from its language considered in connection with the pleadings, evidence and instructions.’” (Id. at p. 316.) “A trial court has the authority to correct a mistaken verdict under section 663.” (Ibid.)  

Here, the verdict was mistaken because the jury awarded damages despite finding no liability. Reading the verdict in context, it is clear that the jurors should not have answered Question No. 6 unless they found Defendant liable for discrimination. The special verdict form should have instructed the jurors to skip to Question No. 7 on retaliation. Plaintiff does not dispute that the verdict form’s instruction to answer Question No. 6 was a typographical error. Plaintiff does not address, much less distinguish, the directly on-point case of Simgel. The circumstances here warrant vacating the judgment regardless of the presiding juror’s declaration.

III. Plaintiff’s Claim for Wrongful Termination was Dismissed

            Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the jury may have found Defendant liable on the claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy even though that claim does not appear on the special verdict form. However, the wrongful termination claim was dismissed on January 31, 2025 pursuant to Defendant’s motion for nonsuit. Therefore, the jury could not have found Defendant liabile for wrongful termination.

            In sum, because the jury found Defendant not liable on every cause of action, the award of damages was erroneous. Under these circumstances, the judgment should be vacated and a new judgment entered in favor of Defendant.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to vacate judgment is GRANTED. The judgment entered on March 6, 2025 is vacated, and a different judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant.