Duste v. Chevron Products Company, Inc.

Filing 74

ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/5/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7

RICHARD A DUSTE,
Plaintiff,

8
v.
9

No. C 08-3980 MEJ
ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF
LAW

CHEVRON PRODUCTS CO,
10
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

Following the close of evidence at trial, Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law

14 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). Specifically, Defendant urges the Court to find:
15 (1) that the statements in this case were slander per quod, not slander per se; (2) that Defendant is
16 entitled to a qualified privilege pursuant to California Civil Code § 47(c); (3) that Plaintiff’s slander
17 claims fail because the statements are true or substantially true; and (4) that respondeat superior
18 liability does not apply because Mr. Black’s conduct was unforeseeable and outside the scope of his
19 employment.
20

The Court has considered the parties’ arguments and reviewed the authorities the parties have

21 cited, and now RULES as follows.
22 1.

With respect to Defendant’s motion that the Court find as a matter of law that the statements

23 at issue in this case are properly characterized as slander per quod, the Court agrees with Defendant.
24 The Court cannot find that the statements, on their face, suggest that Plaintiff was “generally
25 disqualified in those respects which his profession peculiarly requires or to impute something with
26 reference to his profession that would have a natural tendency to lessen its profits.” Cal. Civ. Code §
27 46; see Regalia v. Nethercutt Collection, 172 Cal. App. 4th 361, 367-68 (2009). The Court therefore
28 GRANTS Defendant’s request.

1 2.

As to Defendant’s motion that it is entitled to the qualified privilege under § 47(c), the Court

2 finds that, though sparse, there was testimony from Tim Black regarding his motive for making the
3 statements from which the jury could infer malice. Accordingly, the Court DENIES this request.
4 3.

With respect to Defendant’s motion that Plaintiff’s claims fail because the evidence

5 establishes that the statements were substantially true, the Court finds that testimony was presented
6 from which the jury could find that the statements were false. Further, to resolve this issue, the Court
7 would have to make credibility determinations about witnesses, which it cannot do within the scope
8 of a Rule 50(a) motion. The Court therefore DENIES Defendant’s Motion as to this issue.
9 4.

Finally, with respect to Defendant’s motion that there is insufficient evidence to hold it liable

10 under a respondeat superior theory, the Court finds that there was sufficient evidence from which a

12 DENIES Defendant’s Motion as to this issue.
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 jury could find that Tim Black was acting within the scope of his employment. The Court therefore

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15 Dated: October 5, 2011
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2