Regalia

Nethercutt Collection v. Regalia

Good Law
172 Cal. App. 4th 361·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 381·90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 882·28 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1562
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 19, 2009B200481California3,019 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mosk, J.

INTRODUCTION

We hold statements by defendants that plaintiff, an automobile museum president, (1) demanded a commission or a finder’s fee to which he was not entitled, and (2) was fired because other employees would not work for him and would leave if he stayed, should have been presented to the jury as slander per quod rather than as slander per se. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in favor of plaintiff. Because the jury found that plaintiff did not suffer actual damages, a necessary element of an action for slander per quod, defendants are entitled to judgment without a retrial.

BACKGROUND

J. B. Nethercutt, father of defendant and appellant Jack B. Nethercutt II (Nethercutt) and the founder of the Merle Norman Cosmetics Company, began collecting automobiles in 1956. In 1978, plaintiff and respondent Michael Regalia left his position as a partner in an automobile body and paint shop to work for J. B. Nethercutt on J. B. Nethercutt’s private automobile collection, known as the Merle Norman Classic Beauty Collection.

In 1995, the Merle Norman Classic Beauty Collection became The Nethercutt Collection, an automobile museum with restoration facilities. J. B.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.