Carpiaux v. Peralta Community College Dist.

California Court of Appeal Nov 20, 1989 No. A038271Published

Before: Stein

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the judgment must be reversed because the jury was improperly instructed that it could award tort damages for a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an employment context.

Issues

Whether the District's notice of appeal was timely filed under the California Rules of Court.
Whether the rule in Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. precludes an award of tort damages for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an employment relationship.
Whether a general verdict can be sustained when the jury was instructed on an erroneous theory of liability.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The clear import of the two rules, read together, is that there is an outside time limit of 180 days, and that any applicable shorter time limit may be extended by rule 3 up to, but not beyond the 180-day limitation.”

“Reversal of this judgment is required.”

215 Cal.App.3d 1220 (1989) 264 Cal. Rptr. 208 ANDRE CARPIAUX, Plaintiff and Respondent,

PERALTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. A038271. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One.

November 20, 1989. [1222] COUNSEL

Jon A. Hudak for Defendant and Appellant.

Gregor D. Guy-Smith for Plaintiff and Respondent.

[Opinion certified for partial publication.[*]]

OPINION

STEIN, J.

...[*] Andre Carpiaux was discharged from his job as an instructor at the East Bay Skills Center, administered by the Peralta Community College District (District)....[*] After unsuccessfully pursuing his various administrative remedies, Carpiaux filed in the superior court a complaint and a petition for writ of mandate, seeking back payment of wages and reinstatement.

.... .... .... .... .... .[*]

Carpiaux, over the District's objection, ...[*] amended his complaint to state a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A jury returned a general verdict awarding Carpiaux damages of $500,000. The District filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which motion was denied by operation of law.

The District appeals from the judgment entered upon the jury's verdict and from the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

The Timeliness of the Appeal

(1) An initial issue is whether the District's appeal was untimely filed and whether this court thus is deprived of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

[1223]

Carpiaux v. Peralta Community College Dist.

AI Brief

OPINION

STEIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief