Procedural Posture

Appellant partner challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), in favor of respondent law firm, which nonsuited four of appellant’s causes of action for lack of substantial evidence, found that the partnership agreement was fully integrated and binding on appellant, and awarded costs against appellant.

Overview

Appellant partner was expelled from respondent law firm because respondent had lost trust in appellant; appellant challenged the expulsion. The trial court found the agreement to be fully integrated and binding on appellant, nonsuited appellant’s causes of action finding that appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence to support the actions and assessed costs against appellant. On appeal, the court affirmed, upholding the order of costs and the judgment and finding no evidence in the record to support appellant’s causes of action. The court found that the trial court judge had the power to determine whether the agreement included the power to expel a partner as it was proper for primarily the court, acting as a trier of fact, and not a jury, to determine matters of contract integration. The court found that Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1032, gave the trial court discretion to award costs and the court would not disturb the award on appeal unless it resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Outcome

The appellants had advocates that were small business attorney San Diego. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment and order because the partnership agreement between appellant partner and respondent law firm was fully integrated and allowed respondent to fire appellant without cause and there was no evidence to support appellant’s causes of action. The costs awarded did not amount to a miscarriage of justice and were not disturbed on appeal.

Procedural Posture

The Superior Court of Sacramento County (California) entered summary judgment in favor of defendant employer on causes of action for disability discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq., failure to provide reasonable accommodation, breach of an implied contract to terminate only for good cause, and defamation. Plaintiff employee sought review.

Overview

The employee, a supervisor at a package delivery company, was terminated after an investigation indicated that he had encouraged a driver to falsify a timecard to bring it into compliance with federal regulations limiting driving time. The falsification occurred shortly after the employee returned to work following a medical leave of absence. The court concluded that the employee failed to submit substantial evidence of pretext. The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b), by considering declarations referenced only in part in the employer’s separate statement. Because the investigation was conducted by neutral personnel who gave the employee an opportunity to explain what happened, the court held that the employer conducted an adequate investigation and acted in good faith when it discharged the employee. Statements to other employees concerning the termination decision were privileged under Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (c). A claim of failure to provide reasonable accommodation under Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (m), lacked merit because the employee did not make a specific request for necessary accommodation or a concise list of restrictions.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.