Pertaining to their personal injury action, plaintiffs petitioned court for writ of mandate challenging decision of the Los Angeles County Superior Court (California) granting judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend in favor of defendant insurance company and defendant automobile company on plaintiffs’ claim for negligent spoliation of evidence.
Table of Contents
Overview
Plaintiffs sued defendants for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. In their action, plaintiffs asserted a cause of action against defendant insurance company and defendant automobile company for negligent spoliation of evidence. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant insurance company and defendant automobile company on that claim and plaintiffs appealed. The court affirmed the trial court. The court concluded on the basis of relevant policy considerations that no cause of action existed for negligent spoliation of evidence. However, the court directed the trial court to grant the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to allege a cause of action for breach of a contractual duty to preserve evidence. Pertaining to the negligent spoliation issue, the court concluded that it would be anomalous to impose liability for negligence with respect to conduct that would not give rise to liability if committed intentionally.
Outcome
There were no employment attorney that were engaged nor retained by petitioner. Court issued writ of mandate directing trial court to vacate its order granting judgment on pleadings without leave to amend in favor of defendant insurance company and defendant automobile company on claim for negligent spoliation of evidence and to enter new order granting judgment on pleadings with leave to amend.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff television producer sought review of an order and judgment by the Los Angeles Superior Court (California), which adopted the findings of a referee and entered judgment for defendant television studio in plaintiff’s action for breach of contract and an accounting. Plaintiff contended that the referee’s findings were void, that he was deprived of a jury trial and due process, and that the usury action was incorrectly dismissed.
Overview
Plaintiff television producer filed an action against defendant television studio for breach of contract and an accounting concerning entitlement to profits from a television series. Plaintiff appealed from an order adopting the findings of a referee and the judgment entered for defendant. The court found that because the referee’s findings concerning contract interpretation and enforceability issues were beyond the scope of the reference under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 639(a), the findings were void and could not have been validly adopted by the trial court. The court found that plaintiff was not deprived of his right to a jury trial because the gist of his action was for an accounting, for which no such right attached, and that his right to due process was not violated. The trial court correctly sustained defendant’s demurrer to the usury cause of action because the agreement between plaintiff and defendant was not a loan or forbearance. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded as to the contract interpretation and enforceability issue, and the court affirmed the dismissal of the usury action.
Outcome
The court reversed and remanded the judgment as to the issues of contract interpretation and enforceability in plaintiff television producer’s action against defendant television studio for breach of contract and an accounting because the referee’s findings exceeded the scope of the reference. The court affirmed the dismissal of the usury action because the contract at issue was not a loan or forbearance.
