Narvaez v. Diamond Contract Services

Filed 4/3/06 Narvaez v. Diamond Contract Services CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mary Thorton House, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Avila & Shaddow, Tali Shaddow and Mark Steven Avila, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Willoughby & Associates, W. Anthony Willoughby and Edward S. Hubbard, Jr., for Defendant and Respondent Diamond Contract Services, Inc.

Law Office of Jerome Bradford and Jerome Bradford for Defendant and Respondent Andy Garcia.

Appellant Edith Narvaez appeals from an adverse jury verdict in favor of her former employer, Diamond Contract Services, and former supervisor, Andy Garcia. She claims the judgment must be reversed because of juror misconduct. We agree.

BACKGROUND

Appellant worked as a cleaning person for Diamond. After she was terminated, she sued Diamond and Garcia, alleging: 1) hostile work environment harassment based on her gender; 2) failure of the employer to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment in the work place; 3) wrongful termination in retaliation for rejecting sexual advances and complaining about the harassment in the work place; and 4) battery. The case was tried before a jury. By a vote of nine to three, the jury found that appellant was not subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because of her gender, the subject of her first two causes of action. The jury voted 11 to 1 in favor of the defense on third cause of action and unanimously in favor of the defense on the battery claim.

Appellant filed a motion for new trial arguing juror misconduct on the basis that jurors received and shared outside information with other jurors; jurors were biased against appellant and prejudged the case; jurors refused to deliberate; and the proceedings were irregular. The motion was supported by juror declarations and the declaration from appellant's trial counsel, Tali Shaddow. The trial court struck the vast majority of the affidavits and then denied the motion.

Appellant filed a timely appeal from the judgment.

Further facts will be developed in connection with our discussion of the issues raised on appeal.

DISCUSSION

â€