Livitsanos v. Superior Court

828 P.2d 1195, 7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 808, 2 Cal. 4th 744 (1992)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Livitsanos v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court
828 P.2d 1195, 7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 808, 2 Cal. 4th 744 (1992)

Facts

Apostol Livitsanos (plaintiff) worked for Continental Culture Specialists, Inc. (Continental) (defendant), a yogurt-manufacturing company. Livitsanos began working for Continental in the shipping department in 1976 and was promoted several times, becoming the general manager in 1982. In 1984 Continental’s regular distributor went out of business, so Livitsanos and another person formed a company called ABA exclusively to distribute Continental products. Continental’s owner, Vasa Cubaleski (defendant), credited Livitsanos for saving the company and said Livitsanos would someday own Continental. Nevertheless, in 1988 Cubaleski began harassing Livitsanos. Cubaleski told Continental employees on different occasions that Livitsanos was stealing money from Continental, was trying to sabotage Continental, and was blackmailing Cubaleski. Cubaleski borrowed money from Livitsanos and failed to pay it back on time. Cubaleski directed another Continental employee to accuse Livitsanos of giving himself an unauthorized pay raise. Cubaleski also induced Livitsanos to sell ABA and sign a personal promissory note for an ABA client’s debt. Two weeks later, in 1989, Cubaleski fired Livitsanos. Livitsanos filed suit for breach of contract, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and money lent. Continental and Cubaleski demurred on Livitsanos’s claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted the demurrers on the ground that Continental and Cubaleski’s conduct was a normal part of the employment relationship and, therefore, those claims were barred by workers’-compensation exclusivity. Livitsanos filed a petition for a writ of mandate, and the court of appeals denied it without a written opinion. Livitsanos appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Arabian, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership