SINGH,
v. SOUTHLAND STONE, U.S.A.,
Filed 7/1/10
FOR PUBLICATION
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
THREE
GURPREET
SINGH,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
SOUTHLAND
STONE, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
B208620
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC350196)
STORY CONTINUE FROM
PART I….
b.
Inconsistent
(1) Applicable
Law
A
special verdict is inconsistent if there is no possibility of reconciling its
findings with each other. (Zagami, Inc. v. James A.
Crone, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1092 (Zagami).) If a
verdict appears inconsistent, a party adversely affected should request
clarification, and the court should send the jury out again to resolve the
inconsistency. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 619; Woodcock v.
Fontana Scaffolding & Equip. Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 452, 456 (
(Mendoza).)
inconsistency remains after the jury returns, the trial court must interpret
the verdict in light of the jury instructions and the evidence and attempt to
resolve any inconsistency. (Hasson v.
Ford Motor Co. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 530, 540-541, overruled on another
ground in Soule v. General Motors Corp.
(1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 580; Woodcock,
pp. 456-457.)
On
appeal, we review a special verdict de novo to determine whether its findings
are inconsistent. (Zagami, supra
, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1092.)
With a special verdict, unlike a general verdict or a general verdict
with special findings, a reviewing court will not infer findings to support the
verdict. (
81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 302-303.) â€
| Description | The judgment is affirmed as to the denial of relief on the count for breach of contract and the award of damages on the count for unpaid wages. The judgment is reversed in all other respects and the matter is remanded with directions to the trial court to (1) conduct a new trial on the counts for promissory estoppel, misrepresentation to induce relocation for employment, false promise, intentional misrepresentation, and concealment, and (2) enter a judgment in favor of defendants on the count for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing at the conclusion of the trial court proceedings. The denial of defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed as to the count for intentional infliction of emotional distress with directions to enter a judgment in favor of defendants on that count at the conclusion of the trial court proceedings, and is otherwise affirmed. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. |
| Rating |
