This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Misrepresentation
Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

Neely v. Weyerhaeuser Company, et al.

Published: Jan. 8, 2000 | Result Date: Nov. 2, 1999 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 693747 Verdict –  $1,983,270

Judge

Janis L. Sammartino

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jon Y. Vanderpool

Thomas L. Tosdal


Defendant

George J. Berger

Kathryn Horning


Experts

Plaintiff

Mark De Koster
(technical)

Colleen Harmon
(technical)

Roberta J. Spoon
(technical)

Defendant

Cary P. Mack
(technical)

Daniel Schmidt
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff, now 53 years old, resigned his employment with Weyerhaeuser 10 months after the company assumed control of his previous employer. At that time, plaintiff had more than 24 years of experience operating commercial big rig lumber trucks. On the invitation of a Weyerhaeuser vice president, plaintiff sent a letter detailing his reasons for leaving the company, including criticisms directed to his immediate supervisors. Two months after that letter was sent, plaintiff applied for a truck driving position with Wal Mart, passing through the hiring process pending background checks. Wal Mart contacted plaintiff's former supervisor who gave a predominantly negative assessment in a hostile tone to Wal Mart which thereafter denied plaintiff employment. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant in violation of Labor Code Section 1050, interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. Section 998 demand of $812,551. The defendant made no offers.

Specials in Evidence

$561,089

Other Information

PLEASE RESPOND BEFORE HOLIDAY SEASON, THIS IS FOR JAN. 7, 2000, EMPLOYMENT LAW SPECIAL ISSUE

Deliberation

two days (punitive damages), one day (compensatory damages)

Poll

11-1 (liability), 11-1 (compensatory damages), 10-2 (punitive damages)

Length

14 days


#88476

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390