 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Company3/6/2000
As modified May 10, 2000. There is no change in judgment.
JEFFREY LANE ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS,
v.
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT.
Ct. App. 2/7 No. B090258 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BC075519 & BC083355
Attorneys for Appellant: Law Offices of Ian Herzog, Ian Herzog, Evan D. Marshall and Amy Ardell for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Elaine R. Jones, Theodore M. Shaw, Norman J. Chachkin and Darci E. Burrell for Naacp Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. David S. Schwartz, Mark D. Rosenbaum and Rocio L. Cordoba for Aclu Foundation of Southern California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. Joseph Posner; Quackenbush & Quackenbush and William C. Quackenbush for California Employment Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. Attorneys for Respondent: Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Paul Grossman, Dennis H. Vaughn, George W. Abele, Paul W. Cane, Jr., and Barbara A. Reeves for Defendant and Respondent. National Chamber Litigation Center, Stephen A. Bokat, Robin S. Conrad, Sussan L. Mahallati; Mayer, Brown & Platt, Andrew L. Frey, Philip A. Lacovara and Donald M. Falk for Chamber of Commerce of the United States as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Fred J. Hiestand for the Association for California Tort Reform as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
In this case, we consider the standard applicable to review of an order granting a motion for a new trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 657 (section 657). Consistent with our prior decisions, we hold that such an order "must be sustained on appeal unless the opposing party demonstrates that no reasonable finder of fact could have found for the movant on [the trial court's] theory." (Jones v. Citrus Motors Ontario, Inc. (1973) 8 Cal.3d 706, 710 (Jones).) Because the Court of Appeal did not apply that highly deferential standard in this case, its judgment must be reversed.
I. Factual And Procedural Background
The parties dispute many factual issues and emphasize different parts of the conflicting evidence in support of their various contentions. We have no reason to summarize the details of these factual contentions. Jeffrey Lane sued Hughes Aircraft Co. (Hughes) for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, race discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). (Gov. Code, ยง 12900 et seq.) Lane, who is African-American, alleged that Hughes failed to promote him to various management positions because of his race and retaliated against him after he complained to Hughes's human resources department.
David Villalpando sued Hughes for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress and retaliation in violation of the FEHA, claiming Hughes demoted him and constructively discharged him for refusing to write a poor job evaluation of Lane.
At trial, Hughes claimed it had removed Lane from a project known as "KU Band" because of a staffing dispute and that Lane's performance thereafter deteriorated. Hughes's witnesses also testified that they did not pressure Villalpando to give a negative report about Lane and that Villalpando did so on his own initiative. Finally, Hughes's witnesses testified that Hughes did not retaliate against Villalpando.
The jury returned verdicts for both plaintiffs, finding H
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|