Preview
1
2
3
4 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
5 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
6
7 UN HUI NAM, [Corrected]
Case No. 34-2013-00138396
8 Plaintiff,
AMENDED JUDGMENT
9 v. FOLLOWING TRIAL
10 Dept. 38
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
11 CALIFORNIA,
12 Defendant.
13
14
15 This matter came on regularly for trial from November 1, 2023, through December 18,
16 2023, in Department 38 of the above-entitled court, the Honorable Kenneth C. Mennemeier, Jr.,
17 presiding. Plaintiff Dr. Un Hui Nam appeared through her attorneys, Zoe Littlepage, Rainey
18 Booth, and Amanda Leckman of LITTLEPAGE BOOTH LECKMAN. Defendant Regents of the
19 University of California appeared through its attorneys, Robert D. Eassa and Delia A. Isveranu of
20 DUANE MORRIS LLP.
21 A jury was empaneled and sworn. Witnesses were called, sworn and testified, and
22 documentary evidence was produced and admitted, as set forth in the record. Upon the
23 completion of the presentation of evidence, the Court instructed the jury on Plaintiff’s claims of
24 (1) Discrimination in Violation of Labor Code section 6310 (i.e., the second cause of action in
25 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”)), (2) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (i.e., the
26 fifth cause of action in the FAC), and (3) Violation of California Government Code sections
27 8457.1 et seq. (i.e., the tenth cause of action in the FAC), and on Defendant’s defenses. The
28 Court reserved adjudication of Plaintiff’s claim of
1
Retaliation in Violation of Health & Safety
JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL
Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the University of California
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00138396
1 Code section 1278.5 (i.e., the first cause of action in the FAC) for itself. The jury deliberated,
2 reached a verdict, and completed a Special Verdict Form. The Court read the special verdict, and
3 ordered the Court Clerk to record the following special verdict:
4
* * * * *
5
SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
6 (Nam v. The Regents of the University of California)
7 VF-4601. PROTECTED DISCLOSURE BY STATE EMPLOYEE
8 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
9 1. Did Dr. Nam communicate assertions of fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, threats to
10 public health, or misuse of government property to The Regents of the University of California
(“The Regents”).
11
Yes: ________ No: ________
12 If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, continue to
question 8.
13
14 2. Did Dr. Nam’s communication(s) disclose evidence of fraud, abuse of authority, violation of
law, threats to public health, or misuse of government property that could significantly threaten the
15
health or safety of employees or the public?
16 Yes: ________ No: ________
17 If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no, continue to
question 8.
18
3. Did Dr. Nam make this communication(s) in good faith for the purpose of remediating the
19
health or safety condition?
20 Yes: ________ No: ________
21 If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If you answered no, continue to
question 8.
22
23 4. Did The Regents use adverse employment actions against Dr. Nam?
Yes: ________ No: ________
24
If your answer to question 4 is yes, then answer question 5. If you answered no, continue to
question 8.
25
26 5. Was Dr. Nam’s communication(s) a contributing factor in The Regents’ decision to take
27 adverse employment action against her?
Yes: ________ No: ________
28 2
JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL
Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the University of California
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00138396
1 If your answer to question 5 is yes, then answer question 6. If you answered no, continue to
question 8.
2
3 6. Was The Regents’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Dr. Nam?
Yes: ________ No: ________
4
If your answer to question 6 is yes, then answer question 7. If you answered no, continue to
5 question 8.
6
7. Did The Regents prove by clear and convincing evidence that The Regents would have taken
7 the same adverse employment action(s) against Dr. Nam anyway at that time for legitimate,
independent reasons?
8
Yes: ________ No: ________
9 Continue to question 8.
10 VF-2504. RETALIATION
11 8. Was Dr. Nam’s complaint against Dr. Singh concerning the 2009 Christmas party a substantial
motivating reason for The Regents’s decision to use adverse employment action(s) against Dr.
12
Nam?
13 Yes: ________ No: ________
14 If your answer to question 8 is yes, then answer question 9. If you answered no, continue to
question 10.
15
16 9. Was The Regents’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Dr. Nam?
Yes: ________ No: ________
17
Continue to question 10.
18
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION⎯HEALTH OR SAFETY COMPLAINT
19
10. Did Dr. Nam make an oral or written report(s) regarding unsafe working conditions to The
20 Regents ?
Yes: ________ No: ________
21
If your answer to question 10 is yes, then answer question 11. If you answered no, continue to
22 question 13.
23
11. Was Dr. Nam’s oral or written report(s) regarding unsafe working conditions to The Regents a
24 substantial motivating reason for The Regents’s decision to take any adverse employment action(s)
25 against Dr. Nam?
Yes: ________ No: ________
26
If your answer to question 11 is yes, then answer question 12. If you answered no, continue to
27 question 13.
28 3
JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL
Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the University of California
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00138396
1 12. Was The Regents’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Dr. Nam?
Yes: ________ No: ________
2
Continue to question 13.
3
13. If you answered (a) “No” to question 7, and/or (b) “Yes” to question 9, and/or (c) “Yes” to
4 question 12, continue to question 14. Otherwise, stop here, answer no further questions, and have
5 the presiding juror sign and date the last page of this form.
6
VF-3920. DAMAGES ON MULTIPLE LEGAL THEORIES
7 14. What are Dr. Nam’s damages?
8
1. Past lost earnings and benefits:
9
If you answered (a) “No” to question 7, and/or (b) “Yes” to question 9, and/or (c) “Yes” to question
10 12, then determine and enter below the amount of past lost earnings and benefits you determine Dr.
Nam incurred as a result of The Regents’ wrongful conduct but only for harm incurred through
11 August 7, 2023.
$ ______________________
12
2. Past noneconomic loss, including emotional distress or mental suffering:
13
If you answered (a) “No” to question 7, and/or (b) “Yes” to question 9, and/or (c) “Yes” to question
14 12, then determine and enter below the amount you award Dr. Nam for non-economic harm
incurred as a result of The Regents’ wrongful conduct but only for harm incurred through August
15 7, 2023.
16 $ ______________________
17
18 Total Damages Awarded to Dr. Nam: $ ______________________
19
Signed: s/ [Juror #3]
20 Presiding Juror
21 Dated: 12/19/2023
22 To the Presiding Juror: Before signing this verdict form, please confirm that at least 9 jurors
have agreed to the Jury’s answer to each question that requires an answer. Once you have
23 confirmed that at least 9 jurors agree to each answer, then please sign the form and notify the
court attendant that the Jury is ready to present its verdict in the courtroom.
24
25 * * * * *
26 ///
27 ///
28 4
JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL
Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the University of California
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00138396
1 Subsequent to the recording of the jury’s verdict, the Court ruled on – and denied –
2 Plaintiff’s first cause of action (alleging Retaliation in Violation of Health & Safety Code section
3 1278.5).
4 Based on the jury’s special verdict and the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation
5 under Health & Safety Code section 1278.5 (i.e., the First Cause of Action in the FAC), and good
6 cause appearing, THE COURT ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES that:
7 1. Plaintiff Dr. Un Hui Nam shall take nothing from defendant The Regents of the
8 University of California;
9 2. The claims Plaintiff Dr. Un Hui Nam asserted in the FAC are dismissed with prejudice,
10 the jury and the Court having ruled against her on those claims; and
11 3. Defendant The Regents of the University of California shall recover from plaintiff
12 Dr. Un Hui Nam allowable costs incurred in this action, in the sum of
13 $________________________, as determined by the standards and processes set forth
14 in the Code of Civil Procedure (e.g., §§ 1032, 1033.5) and the Rules of Court
15 (e.g., Rule 3.1700).
16
17 Date: December 19, 2023 Kenneth C. Mennemeier, Jr.
The Honorable Kenneth C. Mennemeier, Jr.
18 Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 5
JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL
Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the University of California
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00138396
Preview
1 2 3 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 5 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 6 7 UN HUI NAM, [Corrected] Case No. 34-2013-00138396 8 Plaintiff, AMENDED JUDGMENT 9 v. FOLLOWING TRIAL 10 Dept. 38 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 11 CALIFORNIA, 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 This matter came on regularly for trial from November 1, 2023, through December 18, 16 2023, in Department 38 of the above-entitled court, the Honorable Kenneth C. Mennemeier, Jr., 17 presiding. Plaintiff Dr. Un Hui Nam appeared through her attorneys, Zoe Littlepage, Rainey 18 Booth, and Amanda Leckman of LITTLEPAGE BOOTH LECKMAN. Defendant Regents of the 19 University of California appeared through its attorneys, Robert D. Eassa and Delia A. Isveranu of 20 DUANE MORRIS LLP. 21 A jury was empaneled and sworn. Witnesses were called, sworn and testified, and 22 documentary evidence was produced and admitted, as set forth in the record. Upon the 23 completion of the presentation of evidence, the Court instructed the jury on Plaintiff’s claims of 24 (1) Discrimination in Violation of Labor Code section 6310 (i.e., the second cause of action in 25 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”)), (2) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (i.e., the 26 fifth cause of action in the FAC), and (3) Violation of California Government Code sections 27 8457.1 et seq. (i.e., the tenth cause of action in the FAC), and on Defendant’s defenses. The 28 Court reserved adjudication of Plaintiff’s claim of 1 Retaliation in Violation of Health & Safety JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the University of California Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00138396 1 Code section 1278.5 (i.e., the first cause of action in the FAC) for itself. The jury deliberated, 2 reached a verdict, and completed a Special Verdict Form. The Court read the special verdict, and 3 ordered the Court Clerk to record the following special verdict: 4 * * * * * 5 SPECIAL VERDICT FORM 6 (Nam v. The Regents of the University of California) 7 VF-4601. PROTECTED DISCLOSURE BY STATE EMPLOYEE 8 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows: 9 1. Did Dr. Nam communicate assertions of fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, threats to 10 public health, or misuse of government property to The Regents of the University of California (“The Regents”). 11 Yes: ________ No: ________ 12 If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, continue to question 8. 13 14 2. Did Dr. Nam’s communication(s) disclose evidence of fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, threats to public health, or misuse of government property that could significantly threaten the 15 health or safety of employees or the public? 16 Yes: ________ No: ________ 17 If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no, continue to question 8. 18 3. Did Dr. Nam make this communication(s) in good faith for the purpose of remediating the 19 health or safety condition? 20 Yes: ________ No: ________ 21 If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If you answered no, continue to question 8. 22 23 4. Did The Regents use adverse employment actions against Dr. Nam? Yes: ________ No: ________ 24 If your answer to question 4 is yes, then answer question 5. If you answered no, continue to question 8. 25 26 5. Was Dr. Nam’s communication(s) a contributing factor in The Regents’ decision to take 27 adverse employment action against her? Yes: ________ No: ________ 28 2 JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the University of California Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00138396 1 If your answer to question 5 is yes, then answer question 6. If you answered no, continue to question 8. 2 3 6. Was The Regents’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Dr. Nam? Yes: ________ No: ________ 4 If your answer to question 6 is yes, then answer question 7. If you answered no, continue to 5 question 8. 6 7. Did The Regents prove by clear and convincing evidence that The Regents would have taken 7 the same adverse employment action(s) against Dr. Nam anyway at that time for legitimate, independent reasons? 8 Yes: ________ No: ________ 9 Continue to question 8. 10 VF-2504. RETALIATION 11 8. Was Dr. Nam’s complaint against Dr. Singh concerning the 2009 Christmas party a substantial motivating reason for The Regents’s decision to use adverse employment action(s) against Dr. 12 Nam? 13 Yes: ________ No: ________ 14 If your answer to question 8 is yes, then answer question 9. If you answered no, continue to question 10. 15 16 9. Was The Regents’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Dr. Nam? Yes: ________ No: ________ 17 Continue to question 10. 18 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION⎯HEALTH OR SAFETY COMPLAINT 19 10. Did Dr. Nam make an oral or written report(s) regarding unsafe working conditions to The 20 Regents ? Yes: ________ No: ________ 21 If your answer to question 10 is yes, then answer question 11. If you answered no, continue to 22 question 13. 23 11. Was Dr. Nam’s oral or written report(s) regarding unsafe working conditions to The Regents a 24 substantial motivating reason for The Regents’s decision to take any adverse employment action(s) 25 against Dr. Nam? Yes: ________ No: ________ 26 If your answer to question 11 is yes, then answer question 12. If you answered no, continue to 27 question 13. 28 3 JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the University of California Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00138396 1 12. Was The Regents’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Dr. Nam? Yes: ________ No: ________ 2 Continue to question 13. 3 13. If you answered (a) “No” to question 7, and/or (b) “Yes” to question 9, and/or (c) “Yes” to 4 question 12, continue to question 14. Otherwise, stop here, answer no further questions, and have 5 the presiding juror sign and date the last page of this form. 6 VF-3920. DAMAGES ON MULTIPLE LEGAL THEORIES 7 14. What are Dr. Nam’s damages? 8 1. Past lost earnings and benefits: 9 If you answered (a) “No” to question 7, and/or (b) “Yes” to question 9, and/or (c) “Yes” to question 10 12, then determine and enter below the amount of past lost earnings and benefits you determine Dr. Nam incurred as a result of The Regents’ wrongful conduct but only for harm incurred through 11 August 7, 2023. $ ______________________ 12 2. Past noneconomic loss, including emotional distress or mental suffering: 13 If you answered (a) “No” to question 7, and/or (b) “Yes” to question 9, and/or (c) “Yes” to question 14 12, then determine and enter below the amount you award Dr. Nam for non-economic harm incurred as a result of The Regents’ wrongful conduct but only for harm incurred through August 15 7, 2023. 16 $ ______________________ 17 18 Total Damages Awarded to Dr. Nam: $ ______________________ 19 Signed: s/ [Juror #3] 20 Presiding Juror 21 Dated: 12/19/2023 22 To the Presiding Juror: Before signing this verdict form, please confirm that at least 9 jurors have agreed to the Jury’s answer to each question that requires an answer. Once you have 23 confirmed that at least 9 jurors agree to each answer, then please sign the form and notify the court attendant that the Jury is ready to present its verdict in the courtroom. 24 25 * * * * * 26 /// 27 /// 28 4 JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the University of California Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00138396 1 Subsequent to the recording of the jury’s verdict, the Court ruled on – and denied – 2 Plaintiff’s first cause of action (alleging Retaliation in Violation of Health & Safety Code section 3 1278.5). 4 Based on the jury’s special verdict and the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation 5 under Health & Safety Code section 1278.5 (i.e., the First Cause of Action in the FAC), and good 6 cause appearing, THE COURT ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES that: 7 1. Plaintiff Dr. Un Hui Nam shall take nothing from defendant The Regents of the 8 University of California; 9 2. The claims Plaintiff Dr. Un Hui Nam asserted in the FAC are dismissed with prejudice, 10 the jury and the Court having ruled against her on those claims; and 11 3. Defendant The Regents of the University of California shall recover from plaintiff 12 Dr. Un Hui Nam allowable costs incurred in this action, in the sum of 13 $________________________, as determined by the standards and processes set forth 14 in the Code of Civil Procedure (e.g., §§ 1032, 1033.5) and the Rules of Court 15 (e.g., Rule 3.1700). 16 17 Date: December 19, 2023 Kenneth C. Mennemeier, Jr. The Honorable Kenneth C. Mennemeier, Jr. 18 Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the University of California Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00138396