|
|
Lindberg v. California Dep't of Education10/31/2005
tin personally in the sum of $150,000.
Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial. By written order, the trial court struck the punitive damages award as to Eastin but otherwise denied the motions.
The trial court subsequently granted Lindberg's postjudgment motion for attorney fees under Government Code section 8547.8, subdivision (c), awarding the sum of $573,316.50.
DISCUSSION
I. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Government Code Section 8547.8 Claim
Prior to trial, defendants brought a motion in limine seeking to strike Lindberg's cause of action for violation of Government Code section 8547.8, on the ground that he did not file a verified claim with the State Personnel Board (SPB) within the time period provided by law.
Government Code section 8547.8, subdivision (a) permits an injured party to file a complaint alleging retaliation with the SPB, which must include a sworn statement that the facts therein are true. Subdivision (c) provides that an employee may not maintain an action for damages unless he or she "first file a complaint with the pursuant to subdivision (a) . . . ." The court received declarations and also held an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether Lindberg complied with these statutory provisions. We summarize that evidence.
Gladys Washington, assistant division appeals chief at the SPB, submitted a declaration which stated that: (1) she received a "First Amended Claim for Damages" from Lindberg on January 16, 2001; (2) on January 22, 2001, she sent a letter on behalf of the SPB to Lindberg, instructing him that his claim was defective for lack of a sworn statement (hereafter jurat); (3) neither Lindberg nor his attorney responded to her letter; and (4) nothing else was in the file.
Deborah Cieri, a legal secretary of the law firm that represented Lindberg during the early part of 2001 submitted a declaration stating that, after receiving the January claim back from SPB for lack of the required jurat, she remembered typing a new claim on Lindberg's behalf that included the jurat, which she mailed to the SPB on or about March 16, 2001. Attached to this declaration was a proof of service executed by Cieri in which she declared under penalty of perjury that she mailed Lindberg's completed claim to the SPB on that date.
Both Washington and Cieri were called to testify at the evidentiary hearing. Washington stated that when no sworn statement was received from Lindberg after she sent a letter notifying him of its omission, she closed the file on his claim. She testified that the SPB maintained two files pertaining to Lindberg's claim; one that included documents relating to the claim he attempted to file with the SPB, and the other containing documents forwarded from the State Board of Control relating to claims Lindberg filed with that age
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|