Bikram - Jaffa-Bodden - Judgment
Bikram - Jaffa-Bodden - Judgment
Bikram - Jaffa-Bodden - Judgment
2'
3
4'
5
6 ',
7'
8
9 ~1 MINAKSHI JAFA-BODDEN,
10
11
Plaintiff,
vs.
J
~
12
13
jM ~
~ N~
W oa
'~z
m"
~
15
m
W ad
~
16
14
~'
17
18
19
20
[PROPOSED]
JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
Defendants.
21
22
This action came on regularly for trial on January 4, 2016 in Department 68 ofthe
23
Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, the Honorable Mark Mooney, Judge presiding. Plaintiff
24
Minakshi Jafa-Bodden, was represented by Mark T. Quigley and Aaron L. Osten of Greene
25
Broillet &Wheeler, LLP and Carla V. Minnard of the Minnard Law Firm. Defendant Bikram
26
Choudhury was represented by Robert N. Tafoya, Esq. of Tafoya &Garcia, LLP, and Defendants
27
28
~c~s.aFE
Bikram's Yoga College of India L.P.; Bikram, Inc.; and Bikram Choudhury Yoga,- Inc. were
~',
A jury of twelve persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and
testified. After hearing the evidence and the arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by
the Court, counsel argued the cause and the jury returned its verdict on January 25, 2016, as
follows:
We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
7
8
1. Was Micki Bodden an employee of and/or a person providing services under a contract
9
10
11
~
with:
(a) Bikram's Yoga College of India, L.P.
Yes
No
12
Yes
No
13
Yes
No
jM ~
14
If you answered yes for any defendant in question 1, then answer question 2. If you
W m U
J
i ~ Z
15
answered no for all defendants in question 1, answer no further questions; and have the
m
'~
w
z z
w
w
cn
16
otf N U
~oa
17
18
2. Was Micki Bodden subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because she was a
19
woman and/or did she personally witness harassing conduct that took place in her immediate work
20
environment.
X
21
22
23
Yes
No
If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no, then slip
questions 3 through 9, and proceed to question 10.
24
25
26
27
28
1C18.4FE
Yes
No
If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If you a~Iswered no, then
skip questions 4 through 9, and proceed to question 10.
- 2PROPOSED]JUDGiVIEN I ~N JUFZY VERDICT
1
2
3
4
5
6
No
If your answer to question 4 is yes, then answer question 5. If you answered no, then
skip questions 5 through 9, and proceed to question 10.
7
8
9
10
11
J
J
M
J
w
W
Yes
No
If your answer to question 5 is yes, then answer question 6. If you answered no, then
skip questions 6 through 9, and proceed to question 10.
12
13
6. Did any defendant for whom you answered yes in question 1, or its supervisors or
jM ~
14
~ m U
--~ p Z
15
m aw
16
If you answered yes, then answer question 7. If you answered no in question 6, skip
17
a2S N U
~ oQ
z
w
z
a
Yes
No
18
19
20
7. Did any defendant who you answered yes for in question 1 or its supervisors or agents
fail to take immediate and appropriate corrective action?
X
21
22
Yes
No
Answer Question 8.
23
24
8. Did Bikram Choudhury participate in, assist, or encourage the harassing conduct?
X
25
26
27
Yes
If you answered no to both question 7 and 8, skip question 9 and answer question 10. If
you answered yes to either question 7 or question ~ then answer question 9.
28
- 31C18.4FE
No
9. Was the harassing conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Micki Bodden?
X
2
3
Yes.
No
4
5
6
10. Did Micki Bodden report or complain about sexual discrimination and/or sexual
X
Yes
No
If your answer to question 10 is yes,. then answer question 11. If you answered no to
question 10, then skip questions 11, 12 and 13, and proceed to question 14.
9
10
1 1. Did any defendant for whom you answered yes in question 1, discharge Micki Bodden
11
or engage in conduct, taken as a whole, materially and adversely affect the terms and conditions of
12
plaintiff's employment?
a
J
13
Yes
No
jM ~
otS x
N U
14
If your answer to question 11 is yes, then answer_ question 12. If you answered no to
1J
question 11,then skip questions 12 and 13, and proceed to question 14.
~ oQ
W m U
J
-~ Q Z
~ a ~
m
z
w
~
c~
16
17
12. Was Micki Bodden's report or complaint about sexual discrimination and/or sexual
18
harassment in the workplace a substantial motivating reason for the decision to discharge Micki
19
Bodden?
X
20
Yes
No
21
If your answer to question 12 is yes, then answer question 13. If you answered no to
22
question 12, then skip question 13, and proceed to question 14.
23
24
25
13. Was the conduct of any defendant for whom you checked yes to in question 1, a
substantial factor in causing harm to Micki Bodden?
26
27
Yes
28
-41C18.4FE
No
1
2
14. Did any defendant for whom you answered yes to in question 1, fail to take all
reasonable steps to prevent the harassment and/or discrimination and/or retaliation?
Yes
No
If your answer to question 14 is yes, then answer question 15. If you answered no, skip
6
7
15. For any defendant you answered yes to in question 1, was that defendant's failure to
prevent the harassment and/or discrimination and/or retaliation a substantial factor in causing harm
to Micki Bodden?
10
11
J
J
Yes
No
Yes
No
12
WW
13
jM ~
~t3 x
N U
14
~ oQ
W m U
~ pz
15
m ad
16
w
z
w
~
C7
If your answer to question 16 is yes, then answer question 17. If you answered no, skip
questions 17, 18 and 19, and proceed to question 20.
z
~
1~
18
17. Was Micki Bodden's reporting and/or complaining about her reasonably based
19
20
21
22
23
Yes
No
If your answer to question 17 is yes, then answer question 18. If you answered no, skip
question 18, and proceed to question 19.
24
25
26
Yes
27
28
1C18.4FE
No
19. If you answered yes to question 9, or 13, or 15, or 18 then answer the question below
this paragraph. If you did not answer yes to question 9, or 13, or 15, or 18, then stop here, answer
no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.
4
5
6'
$ 237 054
7'
$ 187,500
8'
(c) Past noneconomic loss, including mental suffering and emotional distress
91
10
$ 50,000
(d) Future noneconomic loss, including mental suffering and emotional distress
11
J
J
~
Ww
$ 450,000
12
13
TOTAL
$ 924,554
jM ~
~t3 N U
14
~o
W ~ U
-~ p Z
15
20. Has Micki Bodden proved, by clear and convincing evidence, than an officer, director,
m aw
W z
16
or managing agent of any of the defendants that you checked yes to in question 1, engaged in
17 '~ malice, oppression, or fraud, beyond the wrongful termination itself, or that such conduct was
z
w
18
ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent of one of the defendants you checked yes to in
19
question 1?
20
Yes
No
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
On January 26, 2016 the jury deliberated on the issue of punitive damages and returned
the following verdict:
SPECIAL VERDICT PUNITIVE DAMAGES
We the jury, in the above titled case, answer the'question submitted to us as follows:
What amount of punitive damages do you award against Defendants?
TOTAL PiJNITIVE DAMAGES:$ 6,471,878.00
28
1 C18.4FE
~ Choudhury, Bikram's Yoga College Of India L.P.; Bikram, Inc.; and Bikram Choudhury Yoga,
4
Inc.
5
Plaintiff's Application for Attorneys Fees and Costs to be heard and considered by the
6
7
8
9'
Dated:
10 'I
11 I
J
~
12
13
jM ~
otS N U
14
mo o
~ m U
~ Q Z
15
m n'~
W
z z
w
w
cn
16
c~
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1C18.4FE
PROOF OF SERVICE
(C.C.P. 1013A, 2015.5)
1
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 100 Wilshire Boulevard, 21st Floor, Santa Monica, California 90401.
5
6
7
X
8
BY MAIL.
I deposited such envelope in the mail at Santa Monica, California. The
envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
9
10
11
12
X
As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and
processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with
U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa
Monica, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the
party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter
date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
13
14
15
16
X
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. I delivered such document via electronic service to the
offices of the addressee.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
X (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws-~f the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
/
Mindy Puchalt
Name
Signature
1
2
Bolden v. Bikran~
Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County
Case No.: BC 512041
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28