Discrimination defense lawyer for employers

Petitioner employee filed an application for writ of mandate directing the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, to overturn its order compelling them to arbitrate their employment-related tort claims against their former employer, the real party in interest.

Employee worked in the sales division of a securities corporation. After leaving the corporation, employee filed an action charging it with numerous employment-related torts, including age and disability discrimination, fraud, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. His wife joined as a plaintiff in the causes of action for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation. The corporation filed a motion to compel arbitration of all the causes of action in the complaint pursuant to arbitration agreements signed by the employee. His wife did not sign either of these agreements. Nonetheless, discrimination defense lawyer for employers the trial court granted the motion to compel. The appellate court determined the trial court erred. The arbitration agreement was unenforceable, because the employer used threats and cajoling to coerce the employee into signing it.

The writ was granted.

Petitioner accounting firm filed a petition for extraordinary relief from an order of respondent Superior Court of Contra Costa County (California) that precluded petitioner from presenting certain evidence offered in an attempt to controvert the evidence of real party in interest people in an action for accounting malpractice.

 A loan corporation hired petitioner accounting firm to audit its financial affairs. The audit was completed; however, the report falsely stated what the loan corporation's income was. When petitioner discovered the inaccuracies, it failed to take appropriate corrective steps. Subsequently, real party in interest people sued the loan corporation for various causes of action. Petitioner was also named as a defendant and accused of accounting malpractice. After the suit was filed, real party in interest retained an accounting firm as its expert witness. Shortly thereafter, petitioner merged with this accounting firm. Respondent superior court issued an order that precluded petitioner from thereafter presenting evidence to controvert the accounting firm's findings. Petitioner filed a petition for extraordinary relief from the order, but the court denied its request and affirmed the preclusion order. The court held that the issuance of the preclusion order was authorized by respondent's inherent power to control and prevent abuses in the use of their process. The court further held that respondent did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preclusion order.

The court denied petitioner accounting firm's request for relief from an order precluding it from presenting evidence controverting real party in interest people's expert testimony offered in an accounting malpractice case. The authority to issue the preclusion order derived from respondent superior court's inherent power to prevent abuses.

Sponsor Ads

• Ad Space Available - Rent it Now!

Report this Page

Created on Mar 24th 2021 08:20. Viewed 287 times.

Share on APSense

Comments