Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV23817, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 20STCV23817 Hearing Date: January 4, 2023 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion for New Trial
Moving
Party: Defendant City
of Los Angeles
Resp.
Party: Plaintiff Brenda Baca
SUBJECT: Motion for Judgment
Notwithstanding the Verdict
Moving
Party: Defendant City
of Los Angeles
Resp.
Party: Plaintiff Brenda Baca
Defendant’s Motion for New Trial is
DENIED.
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment
Notwithstanding the Verdict is DENIED.
BACKGROUND:
On June 24, 2020, Plaintiff Brenda Baca filed her
Complaint against Defendant City of Los Angeles on causes of action for: (1)
sex/gender harassment in a hostile work environment in violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) retaliation in
violation of FEHA; and (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation
from occurring or continuing in violation of FEHA.
On July 29, 2022, after a four-day jury trial, the
jury found Defendant City of Los Angeles liable on both Plaintiff’s claim for
harassment and for retaliation by a vote of 10-2. The jury was unanimous that Plaintiff
suffered damages of $2,500,000.00.
On November 9, 2022, the Court entered Judgment in
favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.
On November 22, 2022, Defendant filed its Notice of
Intent to File Motion for New Trial. Defendant concurrently filed: (1)
Memorandum of Points and Authorities; (2) Declaration of Blithe S. Bock; and
(3) Proposed Order.
On November 28, 2022, Defendant filed its Motion for
Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. Defendant concurrently filed: (1)
Declaration of Blithe S. Bock; and (2) Proposed Order.
On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Oppositions
to both Motions. For each Motion, Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Declaration
of Yuk K. Law; and (2) Compendium of Federal Authorities. As to the Motion for
New Trial, Plaintiff also concurrently filed her Request for Judicial Notice.
On December 20, 2022, Defendant filed its Replies to
both Motions.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following
items:
(1)
The Amended Judgment, dated
September 8, 2022, in the case of Vince v. City of Los Angeles, et al.,
Case Number BC704165; and
(2)
The Final Judgment After Trial by
Jury on Special Verdict, dated November 2, 2022, in the case of Carranza v.
City of Los Angeles, Case Number 19STCV02594.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice.
II.
Motion for New Trial
A. Legal Standard
“A new trial is a re-examination of an issue of fact in the same court
after a trial and decision by a jury, court, or referee.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
656.)
“The verdict may
be vacated and any other decision may be modified or vacated, in whole or in
part, and a new or further trial granted on all or part of the issues, on the
application of the party aggrieved, for any of the following causes, materially
affecting the substantial rights of such party:
1.
“Irregularity in the proceedings
of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of
discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial.
2.
“Misconduct of the jury;
and whenever any one or more of the jurors have been induced to assent to any
general or special verdict, or to a finding on any question submitted to them
by the court, by a resort to the determination of chance, such misconduct may
be proved by the affidavit of any one of the jurors.
3.
“Accident or surprise,
which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.
4.
“Newly discovered
evidence, material for the party making the application, which he could not,
with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial.
5.
“Excessive or inadequate
damages.
6.
“Insufficiency of the
evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or the verdict or other
decision is against law.
7.
“Error in law, occurring
at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application.
. . .
“A new trial shall
not be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the
verdict or other decision, nor upon the ground of excessive or inadequate
damages, unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the
entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or
jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision. . . . (Code
Civ. Proc., § 657.)
If the evidence allows the trial court to conclude that
different minds could come fairly come to different conclusions based on the
state of the evidence, and that there is sufficient credible evidence to
support the verdict, the court properly denies a new-trial motion. (Kelly-Zurian
v. Wohl Shoe Co. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 397, 414.) A new-trial motion is not
a mechanism for the trial court to substitute its own judgment for that of the
jury. (Id.) Hence, “a trial court cannot grant a
new trial simply because it disagrees with the verdict.” (Barrese v. Murray (2011)
198 Cal.App.4th 494, 505; Dominguez v. Pantalone (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d
201, 215.)
B. Discussion
Defendant moves the Court to grant a new trial on the following grounds:
(1)
Irregularity in the proceedings of
the Court;
(2)
Irregularity in the proceedings of
the Jury;
(3)
Irregularity in the proceeding
caused by Plaintiff;
(4)
Improper orders of the Court;
(5)
Abuse of discretion by the Court;
(6)
Misconduct of the jury;
(7)
Accident or surprise, which
ordinary prudence could not have guarded against;
(8)
Newly-discovered evidence, material
to the moving party’s case, that could not, with reasonable diligence, have
been discovered and produced at trial;
(9)
The award of damages was excessive;
(10) The
evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict;
(11) The
verdict is contrary to law; and
(12) Error
in law occurring at trial and objected to by the moving party.
(Notice of Motion,
pp. 1:27–28, 2:1–15.)
However, in its Memorandum, Defendant only makes the following arguments:
(1) that the Court has broad discretion to order a new trial or remittitur; (2)
that the factors favor vacating the damage award as excessive; (3) that the
award far exceeds awards that other courts have deemed reasonable; (4) that
insufficient evidence supports the Jury’s finding that there was a hostile
environment; and (5) that insufficient evidence supports the Jury’s finding
that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff. (Memorandum, pp. 3:10, 3:26,
6:20–21, 8:20–21.) Thus, the Court only addresses the grounds upon which
Defendant has actually argued.
Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing: (1) that Plaintiff provided
substantial evidence as to her emotional distress, including expert testimony,
making the damage award not speculative; (2) that there are authorities
supporting damage awards well in excess of the amounts awarded here; and (3)
that sufficient evidence was introduced to support each cause of action.
(Opposition, pp. 4:2–4, 8:6–7, 10:8–9.)
In its Reply, Defendant reiterates its argument that the Judgment for the
incidents at issue is patently excessive. (Reply, p. 1:23–24.)
The Court disagrees with Defendant’s arguments.
First, while the Court does have discretion to grant a motion for a new trial,
there must be some grounds for doing so. (Code Civ. Proc., § 657.) Moreover, as
it relates to the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence or excessive
damages, the Court must be convinced that that the Jury “clearly should
have reached a different verdict or decision.” (Id., emphasis added.)
Notably, these grounds are the only ones that Defendant actually argues.
Second, the Court finds that the factors do not favor vacating the damage
award as excessive. Rather, the Court finds that the evidence Plaintiff’s
presented — which involved multiple instances of harassment and retaliation —
strongly weigh against vacating the damages award as excessive.
Third, the Court does not find that the damages award, which is for $2.5
million, far exceeds awards that other courts have deemed reasonable. It is certainly
true that other courts have reduced previous FEHA awards, but that does not
mean that this award must be reduced.
Each case must be judged on its own facts. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Request for
Judicial Notice, which shows an award of $4 million in a case with similar
facts. (See Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 2, Final Judgment After Trial by
Jury on Special Verdict in Carranza v. City of Los Angeles.)
Fourth, Defendant states that “[t]his jury award can only be the
result of passion or prejudice by the jury as demonstrated by Baca’s counsel’s inflammatory
language both during the questioning of witnesses and during his closing
argument.” (Motion, p. 5:14-16.) Yet nowhere does Defendant state that it
objected to any questions or argument made by Plaintiff’s counsel, that the
Court overruled Defendant’s objections, and that the Court’s actions were anything
more than harmless error.
Finally, the Jury’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Among other things, the evidence showed that Defendant’s police officers sent
vulgar text messages to Plaintiff, disparaged her by calling her a “slut” and a
“whore”, and reassigned Plaintiff to desk duty. It appears to the Court that the
Jury then made its Verdict upon the evidence that was presented during the
trial.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for New Trial.
C. Conclusion
Defendant’s Motion for New Trial is
DENIED.
III.
Motion for Judgment
Notwithstanding the Verdict
A. Legal
Standard
“The court, before the expiration of
its power to rule on a motion for a new trial, either of its own motion, after
five days’ notice, or on motion of a party against whom a verdict has been
rendered, shall render judgment in favor of the aggrieved party notwithstanding
the verdict whenever a motion for a directed verdict for the aggrieved party
should have been granted had a previous motion been made.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
629, subd. (a).)
“The trial
judges [sic] power to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is identical
to his power to grant a directed verdict. The trial judge cannot weigh the
evidence, or judge the credibility of witnesses. If the evidence is conflicting or if several reasonable
inferences may be drawn, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
should be denied. ‘A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict of a
jury may properly be granted only if it appears from the evidence, viewed in
the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no
substantial evidence to support the verdict. If there is any substantial
evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the
verdict, the motion should be denied.’” (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14
Cal.3d 104, 110, quoting Brandenburg v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (1946)
28 Cal.2d 282, 284 [other citations omitted].)
B. Discussion
1. The
Parties’ Arguments
Defendant moves the Court to enter Judgment for Defendant,
notwithstanding the Verdict of the Jury. (Motion, p. 1:4–7.) Defendant argues:
(1) that the evidence does not support the Jury’s Verdict; (2) that no evidence
supports Plaintiff’s claims of harassment and retaliation; (3) that Plaintiff
did not experience a hostile work environment as a matter of law; (4) that
personnel management decisions cannot form the basis for a harassment claim as
a matter of law; and (5) that Plaintiff does not even state a prima facie claim
of retaliation. (Id. at pp. 1:19–21, 2:18–19, 6:16–17, 9:22–24, 11:24.)
Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing:
(1) that substantial evidence supports the Jury’s conclusion that Plaintiff was
sexually harassed in violation of FEHA; (2) that substantial evidence supports
the Jury’s conclusion that Plaintiff was retaliated against in violation of
FEHA; and (3) that the evidence produced at Trial supported the Verdict.
(Opposition, pp. 19–20, 4:9, 10:11–12, 11:22.)
Defendant reiterates its arguments in
its Reply.
For the reasons discussed below, the
Court disagrees with Defendant’s arguments.
2. The Evidence
Supports the Jury’s Verdict
Among other things, the evidence presented
at trial showed that Defendant’s police officers sent vulgar text messages to
Plaintiff, disparaged her by calling her a “slut” and a “whore”, and reassigned
Plaintiff to desk duty. This evidence was substantial and it supported both of
Plaintiff’s claims for harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA. No evidence has been presented to indicate
that the Jury made its Verdict based upon any facts not presented during trial
or upon an extraneous influences.
3.
Whether Plaintiff Experienced a Hostile
Work Environment was in this Case, a Question of Fact, not of Law
Defendant misapprehends the type of question that is posed when
determining whether Plaintiff experienced a hostile work environment. Given the
facts presented in this case, it was certainly possible, as a matter of law,
that a jury could find that Plaintiff experienced a hostile work environment in
violation of FEHA. It then became a question of fact as to whether Plaintiff
did in fact experience a hostile work environment. The Jury returned a Verdict
that implicitly made such conclusions of fact; as stated above, such a jury
verdict was based on substantial evidence presented at trial.
4.
Personnel Management Decisions can
form the Basis of a Harassment Claim
Defendant is incorrect as a matter of
law in arguing that personnel management decisions cannot form the basis of a
harassment claim. (See, e.g., Motion, §V; Reply, §II(D).)
“[H]arassment is generally concerned with the message conveyed to
an employee, and therefore with the social environment of the workplace,
whereas discrimination is concerned with explicit changes in the terms or
conditions of employment.¿Miller, however, makes clear that in some
cases the hostile¿message that constitutes the harassment is conveyed through
official employment actions, and therefore evidence that would otherwise be
associated with a discrimination claim can form the basis of a harassment
claim. Moreover, in analyzing the sufficiency of evidence in support of a
harassment claim, there is no basis for excluding evidence of biased personnel
management actions so long as that evidence is relevant to prove the
communication of a hostile message.” (Roby v. McKesson Corp.
(2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 708, italics and underlines added, citing Miller v.
Dept. of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446.)
5. Plaintiff
Establishes a prima facie Case of Retaliation
“To establish a prima facie case of
retaliation under the FEHA, a plaintiff must show (1) he or she engaged in a
‘protected activity,’ (2) the employer subjected the employee to an adverse
employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity
and the employer’s action.” (Meeks v.
Autozone, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 855, 878-879, brackets omitted.)
“An ‘adverse employment action,’
which is a critical component of a retaliation claim, requires a substantial
adverse change in the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s employment.” (Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., LLC (2011)
191 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1063, quotation marks omitted.)
Here, Plaintiff showed: (1) that, among
other things, Plaintiff engaged in the protected activity of making complaints
of her mistreatment by Defendant’s officer; (2) that, among other things,
Plaintiff’s supervisors then relegated her to desk duty, which was an adverse
employment action; and (3) that a causal link existed between the protected
activity and Defendant’s action. This adverse employment action did create a substantial
adverse change in the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment as one of
Defendant’s officers. Thus, Plaintiff both stated and proved a prima facie case
of retaliation.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
C. Conclusion
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment
Notwithstanding the Verdict is DENIED.