Dorame v. R2W CA4/3

Filed 10/1/14 Dorame v. R2W CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

HEIDI DORAME,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G050090

v. (Super. Ct. No. INC088205)

R2W, INC., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John G. Evans, Judge. Affirmed. Oddenino & Gaule and John Victor Gaule for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of D. Michael Caruthers, D. Michael Caruthers and Sigrid R. Hilkey for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Plaintiff and respondent Heidi Dorame brought an in limine motion to preclude appellant and defendant R2W, Inc. (R2W) from referring to her receipt of unemployment payments under the collateral source rule. (See Civ. Code, § 3333.1.) The trial court granted the motion. On direct examination of Dorame, her attorney asked her how she “surviv[ed] economically” since her discharge from R2W. She answered: “Well, with the money I had put aside because I was making pretty good money when I was working for R2W, I was able to use that as my savings. So I got into that and then my mom and dad also helped me.” Dorame did not mention her receipt of unemployment payments. R2W did not object at the time the question was asked or immediately after the answer was given. Without citation to the record, R2W alleges that four days after Dorame testified, it moved to recall Dorame in order to cross-examine her and impeach her regarding the receipt of unemployment benefits, and the court denied the request. R2W contends the trial court’s failure to permit it to cross-examine Dorame on that issue was prejudicial and requires a new trial. We affirm because R2W has failed to cite any evidence or authority supporting its prejudicial error argument. I FACTS R2W alleges Dorame sued it for sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but does include a citation to the record. The complaint against Dorame’s former employer, R2W, is not in the appellate record. The only facts in the record cited by R2W are that Dorame made an in limine motion to preclude R2W from referencing Dorame’s receipt of unemployment benefits, the court granted the motion, one question put to Dorame on direct examination by her counsel and her answer, the jury awarded Dorame judgment in her favor, and the court denied R2W’s motion for a new trial based on its inability to cross-examine Dorame about receipt of unemployment benefits. The question and answer are as