Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 06-06-2006
Case Style: Gabriela Gonzalez v. Emelike I. Kalu
Case Number: B183467
Judge: Croskey
Court: California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District on appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Robert Younger of The Younger Law Firm, Newport Beach, California
Defendant's Attorney:
Ave Buchwald, Blumberg Law Corporation, Los Beach, California
Description:
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Factual Background
Gonzalez worked for a building maintenance company as a cleaner in a food
court. She hired Kalu on June 2, 2000, to represent her in a claim against her employer
in connection with allegations of sexual harassment by a fellow employee. Kalu sent a
letter to the employer on June 6, 2000, stating that the employer was legally responsible
for the alleged harassment. The letter demanded a settlement and stated that if the
employer failed to settle the matter, Gonzalez would file claims with the appropriate
federal and state administrative agencies and proceed to litigation. The letter warned
the employer not to retaliate by terminating Gonzalez's employment. By the end of the
month, Gonzalez told Kalu that she had been fired.
Kalu filed an administrative complaint with the DFEH on July 31, 2000, alleging
sexual harassment only.1 He sent a letter to Gonzalez's former employer that same day
stating that her discharge was an act of retaliation, that he had requested a right-to-sue
letter, and that upon receipt of a right-to-sue letter he would sue the employer for sexual
harassment and wrongful termination. According to Gonzalez, Kalu or someone in his
office told her that same day "that the case was going to take very long, and they were
going to call me or send me a letter."
Gonzalez maintains that she did not hear from Kalu and did not attempt to
contact him from July 31, 2000, until June 2003, when she visited his office to pick up
her file for purposes of separate litigation against her former employer and first learned
that Kalu was not prosecuting her case.2 She maintains that Kalu never informed her
before June 2003 that he would not prosecute the matter further. According to Kalu, he
orally informed Gonzalez at some time that he would not file a lawsuit on her behalf.
Kalu maintains that Gonzalez agreed to drop the case if no settlement was forthcoming
and that his last conversation with her before she picked up the file in June 2003 was in December 2000. Although Kalu's usual practice was to advise a client in writing upon
his withdrawal from representation, there is no evidence of such a writing in this case.
* * *
Click the case caption above for the full text of the court's opinion. Outcome: The judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with the views expressed herein. Gonzalez is entitled to recover her costs on
appeal. Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown Defendant's Experts: Unknown Comments: None