Trudell v. Heilman

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: KINGSLEY; McCLOSKY, J., and MUNOZ; BIRD
• Citation: Trudell v. Heilman, 204 Cal.Rptr. 551, 158 Cal.App.3d 251 (Cal. App. 1984)
• Decision Date: 12 July 1984
• Parties: Roger TRUDELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Thomas HEILMAN and Robert Soule, Defendants and Respondents. B001441.

Page 551

204 Cal.Rptr. 551

158 Cal.App.3d 251

Roger TRUDELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Thomas HEILMAN and Robert Soule, Defendants and Respondents.

B001441.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

July 12, 1984.

Hearing Denied Oct. 19, 1984.

Law Offices of John L. Moriarity, Van Nuys, Roy Penuela, Glendale, John L. Moriarity, Van Nuys, and Marc J. Poster, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Christopher P. Wesierski and Gwen Freeman, Los Angeles, for defendant and respondent Soule.

Grace, Neumeyer & Otto, Inc., Richard A. Neumeyer, Los Angeles, and Glenn A. Brown, Jr., Van Nuys, for defendant and respondent Heilman.

KINGSLEY, Acting Presiding Justice.

This is an action for damages for "embracery" and emotional distress, brought by the plaintiff in a former action for personal injury, against one of the defendants in that action and one of the jurors in that action. The trial court sustained, without leave to amend, a demurrer to that complaint. Plaintiff has appealed; we affirm.

The gist of plaintiff's complaint is stated as follows:

"4. On or about July 22, 1982, Defendants, and each of them, conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his full and fair day in court and of a fair jury verdict in the negligence action. On the day the jury began deliberations, Defendants THOMAS HEILMAN and ROBERT SOULE met surreptitiously during lunchtime [sic ] and secretly discussed the trial of the case. With wrongful and illegal intent to corrupt and unjustly influence the verdict in the case, Defendant THOMAS HEILMAN told Defendant ROBERT SOULE he was a poor man who could not afford to pay a large judgment and otherwise persuaded and influenced Defendant ROBERT SOULE to improperly favor Defendant THOMAS HEILMAN in jury deliberations. Defendant THOMAS HEILMAN intentionally concealed from Defendant ROBERT SOULE the fact that the defendants in that case were insured and that the insurance company would be obligated to pay any judgment.

"5. After this meeting with Defendant THOMAS HEILMAN, Defendant ROBERT SOULE entered the jury room but sat apart from the other jurors and refused to participate in jury deliberations on the issue of liability. After nine jurors agreed the defendants were liable for damages to Plaintiff ROGER TRUDELL with wrongful and illegal intent to corrupt and unjustly influence the verdict, Defendant ROBERT SOULE told the jury Defendant THOMAS HEILMAN was a poor man who could not afford to pay a large judgment and otherwise persuaded and influenced his fellow jurors to improperly favor the defendants in ascertaining the amount of damages to be awarded to Plaintiff ROGER TRUDELL.

"6. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, the jury fixed damages at a very small sum, only $11,902.93, although Plaintiff, ROGER TRUDELL had in fact sustained and proven damages far in excess of $50,000 that three of the jurors believed Plaintiff would recover after all of the persuading of the Defendant herein. The jury would have returned a much larger verdict if it had not been misled, corrupted, and unjustly influenced by the illegal and improper conduct of the Defendants, and each of them.

"7. Defendants, and each of them, acted maliciously, with the specific intent to injure Plaintiff ROGER TRUDELL, and oppressively, by subjecting Plaintiff ROGER TRUDELL to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of his legal rights."

The record before us reflects that these allegations, supported by declarations of other jurors, were submitted to the trial judge in an after-judgment hearing and that...