An appellate court has upheld a jury’s ruling against Tehmina Adaya and Santa Monica’s Hotel Shangri-La, of which Adaya is part owner, in the case of an anti-Semitic episode directed at members of the local chapter of Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF) during a pool party in July 2010.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal found Dec. 29 that the defendants’ numerous claims of procedural error were either unsubstantiated or did not significantly affect the jury’s ruling. However, the court did reverse — and in one case, send back to the lower court — aspects of the case related to the apportioning of monetary damages, indicating that punitive damages were excessive and that attorney fees must be re-examined. Those were originally set at $1.6 million and $2.1 million, respectively.
Ari Ryan, chairman of the FIDF Young Leadership Los Angeles executive board and one of the plaintiffs in the case, said he was pleased with the decision.
“When I found out … the one word that could summarize my experience was proud. I was very proud that the court affirmed the unanimous decision of the jury. I was extremely proud of all of the plaintiffs. I am proud that we stood up for equal rights and against discrimination,” he said.
“This wasn’t a monetary case for me,” he continued. “This case was about shining a light on the fact that this type of behavior and these feelings still exist, and that they can’t go unchecked.”
On the first page of his ruling, the court noted that the standard of review forces the court to review the facts “in the light most favorable to the judgment, giving Plaintiffs the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving any conflict in the evidence in support of the judgment.” The court’s decision Dec. 29 upholds all rulings related to the facts of the case.
The incident took place at an FIDF pool party at the Shangri-La arranged by Platinum Events. Attendees had installed a pair of FIDF banners inside a cordoned-off area of the deck, and they were displaying promotional literature.
Adaya allegedly became incensed when she discovered the party’s purpose, directing her security to inform the party that they were not allowed to use the pool, creating an uncomfortable atmosphere that caused the party to leave the hotel early. During the confrontation, Adaya, who was born in Pakistan and is Muslim, allegedly told Nathan Codrey, the former assistant food and beverage director at the hotel, that she wanted to get the “f—–g Jews” out of the pool and away from the hotel.
On Aug. 15, 2012, after six days of deliberations, the jury ordered Adaya and the Santa Monica hotel to pay the plaintiffs and their lawyers approximately $3.7 million. The defendants submitted a post-trial motion requesting a new trial, and when that was denied, they appealed the ruling.
In response to the defendants’ claim that the plaintiffs did not “prove intentional discrimination,” the threshold required under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, the court ruled that “Adaya’s poolside conduct and speech clearly establishes that Defendants intentionally deprived Plaintiffs of the hotel services because they were Jewish.”
The court did determine that the lower court was in error to allow the plaintiffs to collect punitive damages on top of the statutory damages awarded under Unruh. The act allows statutory damages to be awarded in any amount up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage, but in no case less than $4,000.
Pointing to a 1998 case in which the court expressly referred to the treble damages allowed under Unruh as “a punitive award,” the court ruled that “emotional distress punitive damages awarded in phase two of the trial must be reversed” on the grounds that they amount to a “duplicative recovery of punitive damages.” These secondary damages ranged from $25,000 to $80,000 for each of the 11 individuals. The court also ruled that the lower court must re-examine attorney fees.
One of Adaya’s attorneys, Marcellus McRae of law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, declined to comment.
