PYA International v. White, Zuckerman et al.
An expert accounting firm's employee and a client entered a house belonging to the client's husband, and retrieved business documents that were potentially relevant to community property claims. The Chinese government discovered the entry and taking of documents and then cancelled the husband's lucrative business arrangement for the supply of holographic laminate material, which had been used in Chinese national identity cards. The husband and his various companies sued the wife and the accounting firm for trespass and conversion, among other claims, and a jury awarded the plaintiffs $3.4 million in lost profit damages.
On appeal, the accounting firm argues that its conduct was protected by the litigation privilege (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b)(2)), and that the jury's verdict was not supported by substantial evidence. We find that the litigation privilege did not apply, as the gravamen of plaintiffs' action was noncommunicative conduct. With respect to appellants' substantial evidence argument, we are guided by the long-held rule that we may not substitute our discretion for that of the jurors'. Since the verdict was supported by substantial evidence, we do not reverse.
In a cross-appeal, respondents argue that prejudgment interest on the damages should have been awarded. Respondents' position is incorrect. The trial court's denial of prejudgment interest was proper, as the claimed damages were uncertain and not reasonably capable of being made certain.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Comments on PYA International v. White, Zuckerman et al.