Alejandro Garcia v. Jack Taylor, Jack Taylor Inc.
Published: Jul. 22, 2003 | Result Date: Jun. 18, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC279668 Verdict – $0
Facts
The defendant Jack Taylor has owned and operated a custom and ready made clothing store for 62 years. He has operated as Jack Taylor Inc. since 1978. The plaintiff, a tailor, contacted the defendant in January 2000 inquiring about a position. The plaintiff was living in Atlanta, Ga. at the time and claimed to have been operating a clothing factory in the Dominican Republic. The plaintiff next contacted the defendant in March 2002 and eventually went to work for the defendant on March 25, 2002. He was paid for piece work, i.e. $125 for each coat. The testimony was in conflict as to the terms of the employment. The plaintiff testified that he was promised at least $80,000 annually. However, the defendant testified and produced records that the highest paid tailor working for the defendant earned $50,000 annually. Also, the testimony was that the defendant's store did not produce enough coats annually to enable the plaintiff to earn what he claimed that he had been promised. After working for three weeks, the plaintiff returned to Atlanta for three weeks. During the three weeks he worked for the defendant, the plaintiff earned approximately $800 per week, which was half the amount he claimed that he had been promised. The plaintiff returned in early May 2002 and worked for five more weeks. The plaintiff claimed that he was fired without good cause. Prior to being fired, the plaintiff copied the names of the defendant's clients and subsequently sent letters to these clients soliciting business.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff informally demanded $50,000 prior to trial and $40,000 after the close of evidence. The defendants did not make any settlement offers.
Damages
The plaintiff claimed $80,000 in loss of earnings plus an unspecified amount of non-economic damages. The plaintiff also sought double damages pursuant to Labor Code section 970.
Result
The jury found on special verdict that the parties had entered into an enforceable employment contract, but that the defendant had not breached that contract, and nor had the defendant violated Labor Code 970.
Other Information
During trial, the plaintiff abandoned his cause of action for fraud and his alter-ego claim.
Deliberation
half day
Poll
12-0 (an enforceable contract existed), 12-0 (no breach of contract), 11-1 (no statutory violation)
Length
two days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390