Facts

Gregg Levin was an employee of Canon Business Solutions Inc. (Solutions). Levin sued Solutions, its parent company, Canon U.S.A. Inc. (CUSA), and three Solutions employees, Jack Ketchum, John Focarino, and Rolando Nuestro, after he was terminated. Levin also sued a Michael Cerame, a private security consultant. He alleged wrongful termination in violation of public policy, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Solutions filed a cross-claim against Levin for various claims, including conversion, interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage, fraud, breach of contract, and breach of various Labor Code provisions.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Levin claimed that, with Solutions' permission, he regularly stored parts and supplies at his home and in his car. He claimed that a dispute arose when Solutions tried to reassign him to Santa Clarita/Antelope Valley and remove him from his longtime client, Warner Bros. He claimed that a representative from Warner Bros. contacted the defendants to express concern about the reassignment, stating that is was unnecessary and disruptive. As a result, Solutions permitted Levin to continue serving Warner Bros.

However, the next month, he was called in to meet with two internal auditors and a private security consultant (Michael Cerame) hired to assist with an internal audit. Levin claimed he was questioned about company property and that he acknowledged he had some stored in his car and at home. Levin claimed that Cerame demanded to be taken his home.

When Levin refused, Cerame allegedly threatened that refusal would result in termination of employment and the filing of embezzlement charges. Levin then complied, but alleged that the car ride in Cerame's car to his home constituted false imprisonment. Levin claimed that once they arrived at his residence, the defendants invaded his privacy and intentionally caused him severe emotional distress by searching his garage for company property and removing items found there. He claimed that defendants left his garage only after he called the police. Levin claimed that he was terminated soon thereafter. He also claimed that Solutions repeatedly threatened him with criminal charges unless he admitted that he stole the property.

Additionally, Levin claimed that Cerame visited a customer Levin had serviced and told her Levin had been arrested for theft of Solutions' property. Levin claimed that as a result of Cerame's actions, his neighbors came to believe that he was accused of wrongdoing and his co-workers avoided him.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defense contended that Solutions received a tip from plaintiff's ex-wife that he was stealing company property, storing it in his garage, and selling parts and supplies or using them in his own copier repair business. Solutions retained an experienced private security consultant, Cerame, to assist in an audit of Levin's inventory. Defendants claimed that Levin voluntarily agreed to bring the defendants to his home to conduct the audit and willingly rode in Cerame's car to his home. Defendants alleged that once at his home, Levin said he did not want anyone to come into his house, and the defendants respected Levin's wishes. Defendants contended that Levin went into his house by himself, locking the door behind him, and then opened his garage door permitting defendants to retrieve Solutions' parts and supplies from his garage. Defendants claimed that Levin tried to conceal from the defendants most of Solutions' property that he had stored inside cabinets in his garage. According to the defense, when the defendants discovered these additional parts and supplies, Levin called the police to distract from the discovery of these parts and force defendants out of his garage as quickly as possible before they could discover the extent of the company property in his garage. When the police arrived, they authorized defendants to finish removing Solutions' property from Levin's garage, and no trespass or any other charges were filed against the defendants (as there were no grounds to do so).

Settlement Discussions

According to defense counsel: Plaintiff's last pre-trial demand to defendant Cerame was $400,000. Cerame served a C.C.P. Section 998 offer to plaintiff for $5,000.

Result

Plaintiff's claims for wrongful discharge, violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress were dismissed on summary adjudication, and his claims for defamation and all his claims against defendant Nuestro were dismissed during trial. The jury found in favor of Solutions employees Ketchum and Focarino on all claims and also awarded Solutions $1,840 against Levin on its cross-complaint. The jury found in favor of Levin against Cerame, Solutions, and CUSA on his claims for false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Judgment was entered against Solutions and CUSA in the amount of $1,810 each on the causes of action for false imprisonment and invasion of privacy, and against Cerame for $3,615 on the same claims. On the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, judgment was entered against Solutions in the amount of $50,000 and against CUSA for $150,000.

Other Information

Solutions and CUSA have appealed, arguing, among other things, that since the jury concluded that none of the Solutions employees had done anything wrong, and also found that Cerame was acting outside the scope of his agency, they cannot be held liable as a matter of law. FILING DATE: May 14, 2008.