Martello v. Door CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Mar 18, 2021 No. B297568Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment against the plaintiff, holding that she failed to demonstrate that any alleged trial court errors resulted in prejudice or that the evidence could have supported a finding that the defendant acted outside the scope of her employment.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings and conduct during trial.
Whether the appellant demonstrated that any alleged trial court errors resulted in prejudice.
Whether the appellant met her burden to show that the evidence supported a finding that the defendant acted outside the scope of her employment.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Martello has failed to show that she suffered prejudice as a result of any of the court’s alleged errors.”

“To demonstrate grounds for reversal, an appellant has the burden to show both error and prejudice from that error.”

“Because Martello has failed to provide this court with any legal analysis or record citations relevant to the issue of Door’s employment, we will conclude that Martello has forfeited any claim of error with regard to this issue.”

Filed 3/17/21 Martello v. Door CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

JEANNETTE MARTELLO, B297568

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC625464) v.

KRISTIN S. DOOR,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Harwin, Judge. Affirmed. Crawford Law Group and Daniel A. Crawford, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Danielle F. O’Bannon, Assistant Attorney General, Richard J. Rojo and D.L. Helfat, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Appellant Jeannette Martello brought the present action for assault and battery against respondent Kristin Door, an attorney who worked for the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC). After a trial, a jury returned a special verdict finding that the alleged assault occurred in the course of Door’s employment as a public employee. Because Martello had not submitted a government claim pursuant to the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code,1 § 810 et seq.), the jury’s finding precluded Martello from recovering against Door. On appeal, Martello contends that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear irrelevant, prejudicial evidence and demonstrating bias in the jury’s presence. As we discuss, even if the trial court erred, Martello has failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the alleged errors. We therefore will affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Present Action Martello, a cosmetic plastic surgeon, filed the present action for assault and battery against Door in June 2016. The operative first amended complaint, filed November 3, 2016, alleges that Door, an attorney, represented the DMHC in a proceeding in which Martello was a party. On July 1, 2014, Martello and Door were in the hallway of the Stanley Mosk courthouse following a hearing. Martello alleges that Door spoke to her in “an aggressive and loud tone,” and then “deliberately threw several papers into [Martello’s] face, striking [Martello] with the papers.” As a result, Martello “suffered injury, stress,

Martello v. Door CA2/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JEANNETTE MARTELLO, B297568

KRISTIN S. DOOR,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

AI Brief