$5.7 Million Jury Verdict for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

May 1, 2015 –

Court of Appeal Affirm’s Ted Mathew’s $5.7 Million Jury Verdict For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Today, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court ruling and reinstated a $5.7 Million jury verdict that Charles “Ted” Mathews obtained on behalf Dr. Michael W. Fitzgibbons. Commenting about this victory, Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, said “Ted’s victory today exemplifies why we wanted him to join our law firm. We think that Ted is one of the premier trial attorneys on the West Coast and we could not be happier that he is working with us.”

Mr. Mathews’ client, Dr. Fitzgibbons, sued his former employer, Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (“IHHI”), for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the conduct of IHHI’s chief executive officer (“CEO”). At trial, the jury impliedly found that IHHI’s CEO carried out his threat to “humble” Dr. Fitzgibbons by having him arrested after arranging for a loaded handgun to be planted in his car. The jury also impliedly found the CEO caused Dr. Fitzgibbons’s daughter to be in a serious auto accident after one of her tires was slashed. The CEO retaliated against Dr. Fitzgibbons to punish him for his outspoken opposition to IHHI’s acquisition of the hospital where Dr. Fitzgibbons had just completed a term as chief of staff, and also Dr. Fitzgibbons’s success in an earlier lawsuit that resulted in a $150,000 attorneys fee award against IHHI. Accordingly, the jury found in favor of Dr. Fitzgibbons and awarded him $5.7 million in compensatory and punitive damages on his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against IHHI.

Following the trial, the trial court granted IHHI’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because it found IHHI was not vicariously liable for its CEO’s misconduct under the respondeat superior doctrine. According to the trial court, the CEO acted outside the scope of his employment because he held a personal grudge against Fitzgibbons and therefore his conduct was not reasonably foreseeable.

The Court of Appeal reversed and reinstated the jury’s verdict because foreseeability of the CEO’s conduct is not the exclusive test for determining the employer’s vicarious liability for an employee’s torts. An employee also acts within the scope of employment when his or her tort is engendered by or arises from a dispute that relates to the employer’s business. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s implied finding the CEO retaliated against Dr. Fitzgibbons based on a dispute relating to IHHI’s acquisition and operation of the hospital, and the trial court’s finding the CEO acted out of a personal grudge impermissibly supplants the jury’s determination on the weight and credibility of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal decision can be found here.

Staff2018-04-12T13:45:55-08:00May 1st, 2015|Case Update, employment law, Front Page News, retaliation|Comments Off

Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful

Helmer Friedman LLP, announced today that the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, has held that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable and unenforceable. In this lawsuit, Los Angeles-based Helmer Friedman LLP and Washington, D.C-based co-counsel Bernabei & Wachtel, PLLC, represent Cecelia Carter with respect to her claims of wrongful termination, race discrimination and retaliation. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. 30-2013-00647896-CU-WT-CJC (Orange County Sup. Ct., filed May 3, 2013). According to the Complaint, Ms. Carter reported her concern that several Fannie Mae REO Foreclosure Specialists in the Irvine, California office had allegedly solicited illegal kickbacks from brokers in exchange for assigning Fannie Mae REO listings to those brokers. Shortly after, Fannie Mae initiated an investigation into Ms. Carter’s performance and then, on May 4, 2011, terminated her without explanation. On March 26, 2013, a federal grand jury charged Armando Granillo, one of the REO Foreclosure Specialists from the Irvine office, with three counts of “honest services” wire fraud for allegedly soliciting kickbacks from a real estate broker in Tucson, Arizona, in exchange for providing him with foreclosed properties to sell on behalf of Fannie Mae. On August 4, 2014, Mr. Granillo was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for his role in the kickback scheme. For more information about Mr. Granillo’s conviction, see http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-fannie-kickbacks-sentencing-20140804-story.html

After Ms. Carter filed her Complaint, Fannie Mae moved to compel arbitration. The Superior Court denied Fannie Mae’s motion, holding that defendant failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that Ms. Carter and Fannie Mae entered into an arbitration agreement. The Superior Court found that, although the Offer Letter referenced the arbitration policy, Fannie Mae did not include the arbitration agreement with its Offer Letter and did not tell her where to find it; Fannie Mae then revoked the Offer letter; and Fannie Mae’s subsequent offer of employment did not contain or reference an arbitration provision. Fannie Mae appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision on other grounds, holding that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because it was inherently one-sided in that it exempted the types of claims likely to be filed by Fannie Mae, but included the types of claims likely to be filed by the employee. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. G049112, 2014 WL 4212622 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Aug. 26, 2014). The arbitration agreement covered “all” claims an employee might make involving a legally protected right relating directly or indirectly to the employee’s employment, but exempted “any claim made in connection with workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment compensation benefits, or under any of Fannie Mae’s employee welfare benefits, ERISA, or pension plans, or to any claim of unfair competition, disclosure of trade secrets, or breach of trust or fiduciary duty.” During oral argument, Fannie Mae’s counsel emphasized the aspects of the agreement it claimed were beneficial to the employee. However, the Court of Appeal held that “

[i]t makes no difference that, arguably, the dispute resolution policy isn’t entirely one-sided” and found that the allegedly positive aspects of the agreement do not “save the agreement as a whole when it contains other provisions that have been clearly held to be unconscionable in the case law.”

“We are very pleased that the Court of Appeal rejected Fannie Mae’s attempt to force Ms. Carter into arbitration,” commented Ms. Loveless. “For years, employers have attempted to destroy one of our Country’s greatest institution – the jury trial – by forcing employees and consumers into secret tribunals that favor large corporations over individuals. The founders of our Country enshrined the right to a jury trial in our Constitution and corporations should not be allowed to take that right away.” The Court of Appeal’s decision may also significantly affect the ability of other Fannie Mae employees to bring their claims in court, rather than be forced into arbitration.

For a PDF copy of the Court of Appeal decision, click here.

For additional information or to report unlawful conduct on the part of Fannie Mae, contact:

Andrew H. Friedman

Staff2022-06-08T10:23:02-08:00September 3rd, 2014|Andrew Friedman, Case Update, discrimination, Front Page News, race discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination|Comments Off

Poisoned Pet Food Lawsuit

Contaminated Pet Food – Helmer Friedman LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit

March 27, 2007, Los Angeles, California – Helmer Friedman LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Menu Foods, Nutro Products, Inc., and PETCO – the manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of the pet food allegedly linked to the deaths and severe kidney problems of pets who consumed the food.

Poisoned pet food class action lawsuit filed Helmer Friedman LLP.

June 2007 Update
In addition to our class action lawsuit (Grady, et al v. Menu Foods et al), approximately 120 other class action lawsuits have been filed around the Country as a result of the contaminated pet food. On May 31, 2007, a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) hearing took place in Las Vegas, Nevada to determine what form these lawsuits should take (e.g., whether they should be consolidated into one large lawsuit) and, if so, in what court they should proceed. We had asked the MDL panel of judges to consolidate all of these related lawsuits into a single action in federal court in Los Angeles, California.

On June 19, 2007, the MDL panel issued its order transferring our case and all related pet food cases to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey. Although we would have preferred that these actions be consolidated in California, the MDL panel of judges decided to transfer the case to New Jersey federal court for pre-trial proceedings. Nonetheless, our law firm will continue to prosecute this action on behalf of all persons whose pets either died or became ill from ingesting contaminated pet food.

May 2008 Update
On May 30, 2008, Judge Noel L. Hillman of the United States District Court for the District Court for the District of New Jersey granted preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement of claims relating to contaminated pet food. The Court appointed the firm of Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP to be the Claims Administrator for the class wide settlement.

The Claims Administrator set up a website that contains information regarding the claims procedures, including, the Notice to Class Members, the Claim Form, the preliminary settlement agreement and the Court’s order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The website also contains an extensive FAQ section. Please visit http://www.petfoodsettlement.com

Anyone who wishes to opt out of the class wide settlement is required to provide the Claims Administrator with written notice to be received by the Claims Administrator by August 15, 2008. For information about “opting out” please visit http://www.petfoodsettlement.com

Further, anyone who wishes to object to the proposed settlement must file an objection with the court by September 12, 2008 and serve copies of the objection on the appropriate parties. The procedure for filing objections is set forth in the Court’s May 30, 2008 order and is contained at www.petfoodsettlement.com

December 2008 Update
On November 18, 2008, after a full-day Final Approval Hearing, Judge Hillman issued an Order and 65-page Opinion approving a $24 million settlement with Menu Foods and denying all objections to the Settlement. The settlement covers expenses associated with pet deaths and illnesses, including veterinary costs, time missed from work to care for sick animals, replacement pets, burial expenses and property damaged by sick animals. The settlement does NOT reimburse pet owners for their own pain and suffering caused by injuries to their pets. Pet owners who did not save all their pet food receipts or veterinary bills can still request up to $900 for undocumented claims.

Appeals have since been filed by two separate objectors contesting final approval of the Settlement, and these appeals will postpone the payment of claims. No payments may be made on eligible claims until all appeals are resolved. It is uncertain how long these appeals will take to resolve, and the timing of resolving the appeals is not within the control of the parties or their counsel.

If you have already sent in your Claim Form and would like to confirm that the Claims Administrator has received it, please visit http://www.petfoodsettlement.com/ and contact the Claims Administrator. In the blank box labeled “Message,” state the following: “Please confirm the receipt of my claim and send me my claim number.”

The law firm of Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP has been selected by the Court as Settlement Administrator, and as such they are responsible for mailing out notices about the settlement to known class member and processing all the settlement claim forms for this litigation. The notice and forms they may send you in the mail are the same as those found on the website.

December 2011 Update
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the $24-million class-action suit settlement and concluded that the deal is “fair, reasonable and adequate” except for one minor issue. In re Pet Food Products Liab. Litig., 629 F.3d 333, 336 (3d Cir. 2010).

Staff2018-04-12T13:46:01-08:00May 30th, 2008|Case Update, class actions|Comments Off

Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful

Practice Areas

Locations Served

Attorney Directory