Villafana v. Chen

Filed 2/24/06 Villafana v. Chen CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from orders and a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert Moss, Judge. Affirmed with modification.

Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad, Wendy S. Albers; Grant, Genovese & Baratta, David C. Grant and Marcus G. Larson for Defendants and Appellants.

Wentworth, Paoli & Purdy, William M. Paoli and Jeanine A. Scalero for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Defendants Jensen and Judy Chen appeal (1) the trial court's order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), (2) the trial court's order limiting its grant of a new trial to punitive damages only, and (3) the underlying judgment based on the jury's verdict. We affirm the orders denying JNOV and granting a partial new trial on punitive damages. Because no substantial evidence supports the jury's award for future emotional distress, however, we reduce the $550,000 emotional distress award to $450,000. Finally, because the Villafanas do not appeal the trial court's order granting a new trial on punitive damages, the Chens' protective cross-appeal is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss their appeal from the underlying judgment.

I

Factual and Procedural Background

In April 1994, the Chens hired the Villafanas as resident managers of the Chens' 32-unit apartment complex. The Villafanas received free rent and utilities and $100 per month, plus bonuses. Andres Villafana also received between $7 to $8 per hour for work that was not part of his regular maintenance duties.

In October 2000, the Chens had their property supervisor, Wendy Lopez, inspect each of the apartments to determine whether they were being properly maintained. In particular, the Chens were concerned that small water leaks were causing damage to some of the units. Wendy made a list of deferred maintenance items and provided copies to the Chens and Villafanas. Concerned that Andres was not completing the requested maintenance items quickly enough, the Chens hired Lopez's husband, Guillermo Lopez, to assist Andres. Guillermo and his helper spent over 100 hours working at the complex and charged the Chens $1,171.50. Believing the Villafanas should have performed Guillermo's work as part of their regular duties, Judy Chen required Guadalupe Villafana to endorse her own paychecks over to Guillermo.

On March 30, 2001, the Villafanas visited the Labor Commission and learned that the Chens' practice of requiring Guadalupe to endorse her paychecks over to Guillermo was illegal. On April 3, 2001, the Chens visited the Villafanas' apartment to collect the monthly rent and give the Villafanas their paychecks. The Villafanas informed the Chens about their visit to the Labor Commission, and explained it was illegal to require them to sign over their paychecks to a third party. Upon hearing this, the Chens became upset, slammed their hands down on the Villafanas' dining room table, and vowed the Villafanas would recover nothing from them if they pursued a claim. On April 26, 2001, the Chens terminated the Villafanas' employment and gave them three days notice to vacate their apartment. Judy Chen informed Guadalupe that the Chens suspected the Villafanas were stealing money.

The Villafanas did not move out in three days, and were ultimately evicted from their unit. The Villafanas placed their furniture in a storage unit, and stayed one night with a family friend in the complex. That evening, Judy Chen called the Villafanas' friend and warned her that she could not take the Villafanas in as guests. Shortly thereafter, the Chens evicted the Villafanas' friend and her family from their apartment. The Villafanas then moved with their four children to the children's godmother's two-bedroom condominium. After six months, the Villafanas secured employment and residency at another apartment complex.

The Villafanas filed suit against the Chens for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) wages due and penalties for failure to pay minimum wages; and (3) unfair business practices. The case proceeded to a jury trial on the causes of action for unpaid wages and wrongful termination, and a bench trial on the cause of action for unfair business practices and the claim for statutory penalties and interest due on the unpaid wage claim.

The jury ruled in the Villafanas' favor, awarding unpaid wages of $40,336.14 to Guadalupe and $9,030 to Andres. On the claim for wrongful termination, the jury awarded Guadalupe $50,402.18 in past lost income, $42,000 in future lost income, $250,000 in past emotional distress, and $50,000 in future emotional distress, for a total of $392,402.18. The jury awarded Andres $11,287.50 in past lost income, $52,500 in future lost income, $200,000 in past emotional distress, and $50,000 in future emotional distress for a total of $313,787.50. The jury also awarded punitive damages of $1,500,000 each to Andres and Guadalupe, for a total punitive damages award of $3,000,000.

The trial court awarded prejudgment interest and a $1,500 penalty based on the Chens requiring Guadalupe to endorse her paychecks over to Guillermo Lopez. The court also awarded Guadalupe $16,568.67 and Andres $4,515 on their unfair business practices claim.

The Chens filed motions for JNOV and for a new trial. The trial court denied the JNOV motion, but granted a new trial on punitive damages conditioned on the Villafanas' rejection of a remittitur from $3,000,000 to $700,000. In response, the Villafanas filed a statement rejecting the court's remittitur. The Chens now appeal from the JNOV denial, the trial court's failure to grant a complete new trial, and the judgment as originally entered. The Villafanas did not appeal from the court's order granting a new punitive damages trial.

II

Discussion

A. The Chens Appeal from the Judgment Must Be Dismissed

On appeal, the Chens challenge certain trial court rulings that they failed to raise in their JNOV or new trial motions. Accordingly, we review these matters only on their appeal from the judgment. The issue arises, however, whether a party may appeal the underlying judgment after the trial court has granted that party a partial new trial, and the other party does not appeal. Because the parties did not address this issue in their original briefs, we requested additional briefing.

The grant of a partial new trial â€