Tyson v. Western Residential CA2/8

Filed 7/5/16 Tyson v. Western Residential CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

MAUREEN AMBER TYSON, B263967

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC498660) v.

WESTERN RESIDENTIAL, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mark Mooney, Judge. Affirmed.

Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Bruce Cleeland and Vangi M. Johnson for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Office of Ray Newman and Ray Newman; Susan M. Mogilka for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

After her apartment was burglarized, plaintiff Maureen Tyson brought suit against, among others: (1) Western Residential, Inc., the company responsible for managing the building (management company); and (2) Ruben Cardona-Torres, the maintenance worker employed by management company, whom she believed to be the burglar. By special verdict, the jury concluded Cardona-Torres had not converted Tyson’s property, but management company was liable in negligence for Tyson’s losses. Management company sought judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the theory that it could not be held liable if its employee, Cardona-Torres, was not. The trial court denied the motion for JNOV, on the basis that evidence supported the jury’s implied finding that some other management company employee had committed the burglary. Management company appeals, but challenges the denial of JNOV only as a matter of law; it did not designate the reporter’s transcript of the trial as part of the appellate record and does not seek review of the trial court’s conclusion that substantial evidence supported the jury’s implied finding that the burglary was committed by one of management company’s employees (albeit not Cardona-Torres). As the trial court did not commit legal error, and management company does not seek appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because of the limited nature of the appellate record, our review of the facts is necessarily cursory. Tyson lived on the 21st floor of a high-rise apartment building managed by management company. The building had been advertised as a secure building with controlled access. In August 2012, Tyson’s apartment was burglarized while she was away in Europe. On September 9, 2013, Tyson brought suit against management company and Cardona-Torres. According to her complaint, Cardona-Torres had admitted to a parking valet at the building that he and a friend had committed the Tyson burglary. (The admission was allegedly made in the course of Cardona-Torres’s attempt to solicit the valet to help him commit further break-ins by alerting him to times other tenants’ cars were away.)