Leontaritis v. Koursaris, B196816 (Cal. App. 9/23/2008), B196816
| Decision Date | 23 September 2008 |
| Docket Number | B196816 |
| Parties | EFTEHEA LEONTARITIS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TONY KOURSARIS et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC309027, Mel Red Recana, Judge. Affirmed.
Veatch Carlson, Gilbert A. Garcia and Ted L. Travis for Defendants and Appellants.
Law Offices of Victor L. George, Victor L. George and Wayne C. Smith; Dia Sinohuie Rogers; Esner, Chang & Ellis, Gregory R. Ellis, Stuart B. Esner and Holly N. Boyer for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendants Tony Koursaris and Taverna's, Inc. appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Eftehea Leontaritis entered after a jury trial. The jury awarded plaintiff $1,764,300 in compensatory damages on her causes of action for sexual harassment, discrimination, negligence, battery, false imprisonment, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. The jury additionally awarded plaintiff $ 2,200,000 in punitive damages. Defendants also appeal from various postjudgment orders, including denial of their motion for a new trial.
Defendants claim the judgment must be reversed due to numerous procedural irregularities, attorney and jury misconduct, evidentiary error, and an excessive damage award. We disagree and affirm.
Defendant Tony Koursaris (Tony) and his wife, Liza, own defendant Taverna's, Inc., doing business as Taverna Tony's, a restaurant in Malibu. Liza was in charge of human resources at the restaurant. From April 2000 to March 2003, plaintiff worked as a hostess at the restaurant.
In the summer of 2002, Tony began making sexual advances toward plaintiff. He would rub his genital area against her while she was at the hostess counter and comment on the effect she had on him. She tried to stop him by avoiding the hostess counter or telling him that customers were watching.
On numerous occasions, Tony attempted to hug and kiss plaintiff. He also made comments of a sexual nature to her, and he made sexual comments about her to other people.
Plaintiff complained to the restaurant manager, Angelos Panagopoulis (Panagopoulis), about Tony's behavior. She did not see any results from her complaint.
A former employee of Taverna Tony's, Juan Ramirez (Ramirez), observed Tony walk plaintiff to her car. Tony then got into the car and tried to grab and kiss plaintiff. Ramirez also saw Tony come up behind plaintiff in the kitchen and grab and kiss her.
Ashley Futak (Futak), a former waitress at Taverna Tony's, observed Tony rubbing up against plaintiff every day, sometimes five or six times a day. She also observed Tony rub up against her roommates. When Tony began making comments of a sexual nature to her, Futak began to avoid him. He then began making derogatory comments about her. Futak complained to Panagopoulis, but he said nothing could be done about Tony's behavior.
In March 2003, Liza was in Greece. On March 27, toward the end of plaintiff's evening shift, Tony asked her to come upstairs to his office so he could show her pictures of the house he was building in Malibu. While plaintiff was sitting in the office, waiting for pictures of the house to download onto the computer, Tony unbuttoned his pants, grabbed plaintiff's hand and placed it on his penis. She pulled her hand away and tried to stand, but her chair was blocked by boxes stored in the office.
When plaintiff finally was able to stand, Tony grabbed her and forced her backward, pinning her against a desk. He tried to remove her pants, then he lifted her blouse and brassiere and began sucking her breasts. He then sat down in a chair, blocking her path to the office door, and began cursing.
Plaintiff thought Tony realized he had gone too far and the attack was over. She tried to walk around Tony to get to the door. He grabbed her and again pinned plaintiff to the desk. He exposed his penis and begged her to play with it. When she refused, he grabbed her hand, placed it on his penis and began to masturbate with it. Plaintiff managed to remove her hand. Tony continued to masturbate while keeping her pinned against the desk. He ejaculated and then sat down, saying, "I don't believe it."
Plaintiff ran out of the office and downstairs. She told Panagopoulis that she was "never coming back to this place." Panagopoulis asked whether Tony "hit on" her. She said he did, and it was bad; Tony had crossed every boundary.
In the days that followed, Tony and Liza telephoned plaintiff and left messages for her. Tony used endearments, said he hoped she was okay and told her that he loved her. Liza complained that plaintiff never called them back and asked if plaintiff could work on Saturdays while another employee was out of the country.
After the attack, plaintiff suffered physical and emotional pain. She was depressed and cried frequently. She saw a doctor and a psychologist; she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and prescribed antidepressant medication. Over a year after the attack, she continued to have crying spells and nightmares.
Tony denied sexually assaulting plaintiff. Liza investigated plaintiff's claims and concluded that plaintiff was lying. Tony and Liza took the position that plaintiff made up these claims in order to extort money from them.
Liza asserted that she was experienced and competent in human resources. When investigating plaintiff's claims, she had Tony in the room with her while she interviewed current restaurant employees. She saw nothing wrong with this.
Gary Margolis (Margolis), a certified public accountant, valued the net worth of Taverna Tony's at $6.8 million, using a formula based on earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation. Margolis valued Tony's net worth at $10.2 million, comprised of $7 million for his house in the United States, $2 million for his villa in Greece, and $1.2 million for personal property.
On appeal, we start with the presumption that the judgment of the trial court is correct. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133; Fleishman v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 350, 357.) It is the burden of the appellants to show reversible error by an adequate record. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; Robbins v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 313, 318.) Meeting this burden requires citations to the record to direct the court to the pertinent evidence or other matters in the record which demonstrate reversible error. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1); Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115; Culbertson v. R. D. Werner Co., Inc. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 704, 710.)
Similarly, we start with a "`"presumption that the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact."'" (People v. Dougherty (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 282.) Any challenge to the trial court's factual findings requires the appellants to demonstrate that there is no substantial evidence to support those findings. (Ibid.) This demonstration requires the appellants to "`"state fully, with transcript references, the evidence which is claimed to be insufficient to support the findings."'" (Ibid.) The appellants must "` '" (Ibid., italics omitted)
It is not our responsibility to comb the appellate record for facts, or to conduct legal research in search of authority, to support the contentions on appeal. (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768; see also Annod Corp. v. Hamilton & Samuels (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1301.) It would be unfair to other litigants and a waste of our time if we were "`required to perform tasks which are properly those of appellants' counsel.'" (People v. Dougherty, supra, 138 Cal.App.3d at p. 283.)
Defendants' failure to set forth a statement of facts based on the evidence presented at trial waives any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's findings. "[A]n attack on the evidence without a fair statement of the evidence is entitled to no consideration when it is apparent that a substantial amount of evidence was received on behalf of the respondent." (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.)
Therefore, despite the inclusion of a reporter's transcript of the proceedings, we will treat this appeal much like an appeal on the judgment roll. That is, we can consider only those "matters appearing on the face of the judgment roll." (Williams v. Inglewood Board of Realtors (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 479, 483.) We deem the trial court's findings to be supported by the evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support those findings is not open to question. (Id. at p. 482; accord, Ducray v. Ducray (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 480, 483.)
To the extent defendants claim errors of law, defendants have the burden to demonstrate both error in the trial court's rulings and prejudice resulting therefrom. (Ballard v. Uribe, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 574;Robbins v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 318.) Meeting this burden requires citation to relevant authority and argument. (Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546; People v. Dougherty, supra, 138 Cal.App.3d at p. 282.) The failure to meet this burden waives the issues on appeal. (Mansell, supra, at pp. 545-546; Dougherty, supra, at p. 282.)
During voir dire, one of the prospective jurors expressed confusion between civil and criminal trials. The trial court explained the difference. Defendants contend that two sentences of this explanation irrevocably prejudiced the jury, requiring reversal of the judgment. We disagree.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial