Appellant corporation sought review from the Municipal Court for the Los Angeles Judicial District

 

Procedural Posture

Appellant corporation sought review from the Municipal Court for the Los Angeles Judicial District (California), which rendered a judgment in favor of respondent property owner in the property owner's action arising from an alleged fraud in connection with obtaining a mortgage on real estate.

 

Overview: Appeal on the basis of caci 3903

 

The property owner brought an action alleging she was induced to convey her property to the corporation as a result of fraud and deceit. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the property owner. The corporation sought review. On review, the court found that the complaint, although devoid of any allegation of damage, contained a prayer for general damages, exemplary damages, costs, and other general relief. The court determined that the complaint either stated a cause of action in equity to have the deed that was executed by the property owner declared a mortgage or, in the alternative, stated an action for damages for fraud. The court concluded that if it was an equity action, it was within the jurisdiction of the superior court. The court also concluded that if it was an action for damages for fraud, it was fatally defective in failing to allege any damage because there was no allegation of general damages or the value of the property which the property owner conveyed to the corporation. The court held that the trial court erred in entering a judgment permitting the property owner to recover on a contract which she neither alleged nor proved that she entered into.

 

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment of the trial court.

 

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff employee appealed the order of the Municipal Court for the Los Angeles Judicial District of Los Angeles County (California), which reversed the award of the labor commissioner and rendered judgment for defendant employer that plaintiff take nothing in his claim for vacation pay earned and unpaid at the time of his separation.

 

Overview:

The labor commissioner awarded plaintiff employee his 1979 vacation pay earned and unpaid at the time of his separation, minus one day taken; granted postjudgment interest and costs; and denied 1980 vacation pay. The trial court heard defendant employer's appeal de novo and rendered a take-nothing judgment. Plaintiff appealed. The court reversed, awarded costs on appeal to plaintiff and remanded, with directions to reinstate the commissioner's judgment. The court held that plaintiff was entitled to payment for unused vacation time upon termination, pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 227.3. The court held that plaintiff's benefits were vested because he was a regular salaried employee on the active roll on December 31, 1978, and employed on a regular basis before March 31, 1979. The court found that plaintiff's failure to request benefits during the calendar year was not a forfeiture, because defendant's policy statements were ambiguous in defining the vacation rights of employees terminated for disability. The court held that defendant's personnel director violated the expressed policy of monitoring and the implied-in-law covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

 

Outcome

The court reversed and remanded, granted costs to plaintiff employee on appeal, and directed the trial court to enter judgment for plaintiff, plus postjudgment interest and costs, because plaintiff's termination for disability did not forfeit his vested vacation time and defendant employer violated its policy of monitoring and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.