A recent court filing reveals a contentious legal battle between a licensed vocational nurse and his former employer, a prominent healthcare system in Southern California. The complaint, filed by Paul Edward Martignetti in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on July 24, 2024, against Southern California Healthcare System, Inc., centers around allegations of employment discrimination and wrongful termination.
Paul Edward Martignetti initiated the lawsuit after being terminated from his position at the healthcare system's behavioral health facility in Culver City, California. Martignetti claims that his termination was not only unjust but also rooted in discriminatory practices. According to the court documents, Martignetti had been employed since March 12, 2014, and had suffered multiple work-related injuries over the years. Despite these challenges, he continued to fulfill his duties until January 2020 when he was informed that he needed to find an alternative position before ultimately being terminated.
The crux of the case lies in the arbitration process that followed Martignetti's initial complaint. Both parties agreed to binding arbitration under JAMS Employment Arbitration Rules and Procedures. During this arbitration, significant controversy arose regarding the handling of privileged documents. The arbitrator conducted an in camera review of several documents that the hospital claimed were protected by attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. This review included internal email correspondences and a "termination summary" report prepared for the hospital’s legal department.
The hospital contended that these documents were privileged and should not have been disclosed or reviewed without proper objection procedures being followed. However, during testimony by Lindsay Jones, the hospital’s former regional director of human resources, it was revealed that some relevant emails had not been produced during discovery. This led to further scrutiny and eventual production of additional documents by the hospital.
Despite objections from the hospital's counsel regarding the arbitrator's review process, no formal written objection was lodged as required under JAMS Rules. The arbitrator ultimately ruled that certain email threads were not privileged and admitted them into evidence. This decision played a pivotal role in her final award issued in June 2022, which favored Martignetti with $3.4 million in damages for economic loss, non-economic loss, interest, attorney fees, and costs.
Following this decision, Southern California Healthcare System petitioned to vacate the award on grounds that the arbitrator’s actions constituted an improper invasion of attorney-client privilege. They argued that this violation left them with no recourse during arbitration and tainted the final judgment.
However, upon reviewing both parties' arguments and supporting declarations from their respective attorneys, Judge Michelle Williams Court denied the hospital’s petition to vacate the award. The court emphasized that established law requires any objections regarding an arbitrator’s conduct to be made promptly and in writing—something which was not done by the hospital at any stage during or immediately after arbitration proceedings.
The ruling underscored principles against procedural gamesmanship where parties might reserve objections for use only if they receive an unfavorable outcome. By failing to object promptly as per JAMS Rules No. 15 and No. 27—which mandate written objections—the court held that Southern California Healthcare System effectively waived its right to challenge on those grounds post-award.
Representing Paul Edward Martignetti were attorneys Akop J. Nalbandyan and Charlene L. Nercess from Levin & Nalbandyan LLP while Ekwan E Rhow along with Thomas R Freeman and Christopher J Lee from Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg & Rhow PC represented Southern California Healthcare System Inc.. The case ID is B327194 presided over by Judge Michelle Williams Court.