Kathryn Dydo v. Informative Research and M.E. Buckner
Published: Sep. 27, 1997 | Result Date: Aug. 12, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SCV12303 Verdict – $525,406
Judge
Court
San Bernardino Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Marvin M. Reiter
(technical)
Facts
Between 1982 and 1993, plaintiff Kathryn Dydo, a 39-year-old credit reporting manager, had been employed by defendant Informative Research, a mortgage credit reporting company. In 1989, Informative Research bought a credit reporting company named Credit Information Services (CIS) which became a wholly owned subsidiary. Defendant M.E. Buckner, president and CEO of Informative Research, offered the plaintiff a promotion to president of CIS. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant promised her a $100,000 annual salary and a 10% ownership interest in CIS if the plaintiff would increase the business revenue. M.E. Buckner denied making any promise regarding stock ownership. The plaintiff assumed the new job, which she held until July 15, 1993, when she was terminated. The plaintiff claimed tht she increased the business $600,000 per year in revenues to $3.9 million in revenues. In January 1993, the plaintiff requested that she aquire CIS ownership and she was infomred that she would not be permitted to acquire any stock. In June 1993, the defendants allegedly learned that the plaintiff was going to start up a competing company, in which the office manager had agreed to join her. On July 8, 1993, M.E. Buckner confronted the plaintiff in her office. The meeting lasted two and one-half hours. In the meeting, the plaintiff denied plans to start a competing company. M.E. Buckner asked the plaintiff to leave the room. As she started to leave, she took her briefcase. M.E. Buckner insisted that the plaintiff leave her briefcase. The plaintiff refused and a tug-of-war over the briefcase ensued. M.E. Buckner prevailed and poured the briefcase contents onto the plaintiff's desk. The contents allegedly included incriminating documents regarding the new business. M.E. Buckner then suspended the plaintiff's employment and terminated her on July 15, 1993. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants based on wrongful termination, promissory fraud, assault and battery and false imprisonment theories of recovery. The first trial began in April 1996. That jury found against the plaintiff on wrongful termination and assault and battery, and for the plaintiff on false imprisonment, but found no malice. The jury awarded $150,000 in compensaory damages. The jury hung on the fraud cause of action. A second trial, on the fraud cause of action, began in August 1997.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $150,000. The defendants made no settlement offers.
Damages
The plaintiff claimed loss of 10% interest in company.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately three years and three months after the case was filed. An arbitration was held on July 11, 1995 before Arthwell Hayton resulting in an award of $202,300. Thje defendants have filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on false imprisonment and fraud and, in the alternative, for new trial. The plaintiff testified that she would have taken the job as president of CIS, but claimed that she owuld not have worked as hard, had there not been a promise of stock ownership. The plaintiff's expert testified to the value of 10% stock ownership, had it been conveyed in 1992. The court denied the defendants' affirmative defense of statute of frauds.
Deliberation
6 hours
Poll
10-2
Length
6 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390