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)
APPEALS
from a judgment and order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County, Mary Thornton House, Judge. Judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in
part; order is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Malhotra
& Malhotra, Krishna R. Malhotra; and Howard Posner
for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Haight
Brown & Bonesteel, Rita Gunasekaran, Maureen Haight Gee; Law Offices of
Norman A. Filer and Hitendra Bhakta for Defendants and Appellants.
In
this case, we review a trial court's judgment regarding the contract and tort
claims of an alien employee who was induced to come to the United
States by the defendants and who, within
just a few months of his arrival, had his promised salary reduced and then was
pressured to resign.
Gurpreet
Singh moved from India
to California
to work as a general manager for Southland Stone, U.S.A.,
Inc. (Southland Stone). Ravinder S.
Johar was president of the company.
After Singh resigned and had returned to India,
he filed suit against Southland Stone and Johar (collectively, defendants),
alleging a number of causes of action.
The jury awarded Singh compensatory
damages for economic and emotional injuries, and punitive damages. Defendants appeal the judgment and the denial
of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Singh also appeals, challenging
a limiting jury instruction and the denial of leave to amend his complaint
during trial.
As
we explain, we resolve the several issues presented as follows: (1) Singh has shown no prejudicial error
in either the limiting instruction or the denial of his request for leave to
amend the complaint; (2) the refusal of defendants' proposed jury
instruction regarding the salary reduction was error; (3) defendants are
entitled to judgment in their favor on the count for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing; (4) the special verdict findings regarding alleged
misrepresentations and promises made to Singh are inconsistent; (5) such
inconsistency also extends to the finding of malice, oppression, or fraud;
(6) defendants have shown no error in the award of damages for unpaid
wages; (7) the award of damages for intentional infliction of emotional
distress is based on injuries suffered in the course and scope of employment
for which workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy; and (8) the
workers' compensation exclusivity rule does not, however, preclude this entire
action.
We
therefore will affirm the judgment in part and reverse in part, and affirm in
part and reverse in part the denial of defendants' motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]
1. Factual
Background
Johar
is the president and owner of Southland Stone, an importer and distributor of
natural stone based in North Hollywood. Johar and Singh are related through
marriage. Johar is married to Singh's
first cousin. During a visit to India
in November 2003, Johar informed Singh that Southland Stone was seeking a
general manager for Internet sales.
Singh
visited the Los Angeles area for 10
days in January 2004, at Johar's invitation, to learn more about the employment
opportunity. After returning to India,
Singh corresponded with Johar regarding potential employment terms. Johar offered a monthly salary of
$10,000. He stated in an e-mail to Singh
that employment in the United States
was â€
| Description | In this case, we review a trial court's judgment regarding the contract and tort claims of an alien employee who was induced to come to the United States by the defendants and who, within just a few months of his arrival, had his promised salary reduced and then was pressured to resign. |
| Rating |
