SINGH, v. SOUTHLAND STONE, U.S.A., Part-I
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>SINGH, v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >SINGH, v.<br /> SOUTHLAND STONE, </b><b >U.S.A.</b><b<br /> >,</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/1/10<br /> <br/><b<br /> ><i > </i></b><br /> <br/><b<br /> ><i > </i></b><br /> <br/><b<br /> ><i > </i></b><br /> <br/><b<br /> ><i > </i></b><br /> <br/><b<br /> ><i > </i></b><br /> <br/><b<br /> ><i > </i></b><br /> <br/><b<br /> ><i >CERTIFIED<br /> FOR PUBLICATION</i></b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SECOND<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> THREE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>GURPREET SINGH,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SOUTHLAND STONE, U.S.A.,<br /> Inc., et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendants and Appellants.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> B208620<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Los Angeles County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct.<br /> No. BC350196)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> APPEALS<br /> from a judgment and order of the Superior Court<br /> of Los Angeles<br /> County, Mary Thornton House, Judge. Judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in<br /> part; order is affirmed in part and reversed in part.<br /> <br/> Malhotra<br /> & Malhotra, Krishna R. Malhotra; and Howard Posner<br /> for Plaintiff and Appellant.<br /> <br/> Haight<br /> Brown & Bonesteel, Rita Gunasekaran, Maureen Haight Gee; Law Offices of<br /> Norman A. Filer and Hitendra Bhakta for Defendants and Appellants.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> In<br /> this case, we review a trial court's judgment regarding the contract and tort<br /> claims of an alien employee who was induced to come to the United<br /> States by the defendants and who, within<br /> just a few months of his arrival, had his promised salary reduced and then was<br /> pressured to resign.<br /> <br/> Gurpreet<br /> Singh moved from India<br /> to California<br /> to work as a general manager for Southland Stone, U.S.A.,<br /> Inc. (Southland Stone). Ravinder S.<br /> Johar was president of the company. <br /> After Singh resigned and had returned to India,<br /> he filed suit against Southland Stone and Johar (collectively, defendants),<br /> alleging a number of causes of action. <br /> The jury awarded Singh compensatory<br /> damages for economic and emotional injuries, and punitive damages. Defendants appeal the judgment and the denial<br /> of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Singh also appeals, challenging<br /> a limiting jury instruction and the denial of leave to amend his complaint<br /> during trial.<br /> <br/> As<br /> we explain, we resolve the several issues presented as follows: (1) Singh has shown no prejudicial error<br /> in either the limiting instruction or the denial of his request for leave to<br /> amend the complaint; (2) the refusal of defendants' proposed jury<br /> instruction regarding the salary reduction was error; (3) defendants are<br /> entitled to judgment in their favor on the count for breach of the implied covenant of good faith<br /> and fair dealing; (4) the special verdict findings regarding alleged<br /> misrepresentations and promises made to Singh are inconsistent; (5) such<br /> inconsistency also extends to the finding of malice, oppression, or fraud;<br /> (6) defendants have shown no error in the award of damages for unpaid<br /> wages; (7) the award of damages for intentional infliction of emotional<br /> distress is based on injuries suffered in the course and scope of employment<br /> for which workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy; and (8) the<br /> workers' compensation exclusivity rule does not, however, preclude this entire<br /> action.<br /> <br/> We<br /> therefore will affirm the judgment in part and reverse in part, and affirm in<br /> part and reverse in part the denial of defendants' motion for judgment<br /> notwithstanding the verdict.<br /> <br/><b<br /> ><i >FACTUAL<br /> AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</i><b >[1]</b><i<br /> ></i></b><br /> <br/> 1. <i >Factual<br /> Background</i><br /> <br/> Johar<br /> is the president and owner of Southland Stone, an importer and distributor of<br /> natural stone based in North Hollywood. Johar and Singh are related through<br /> marriage. Johar is married to Singh's<br /> first cousin. During a visit to India<br /> in November 2003, Johar informed Singh that Southland Stone was seeking a<br /> general manager for Internet sales.<br /> <br/> Singh<br /> visited the Los Angeles area for 10<br /> days in January 2004, at Johar's invitation, to learn more about the employment<br /> opportunity. After returning to India,<br /> Singh corresponded with Johar regarding potential employment terms. Johar offered a monthly salary of<br /> $10,000. He stated in an e-mail to Singh<br /> that employment in the United States<br /> was â€