Turtle Talk

Here s the unpublished opinion in Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (Cal. App., 4th Dist.).

An excerpt:

This case arises from unsuccessful negotiations between the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians (Pauma) and Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (Caesars), for Caesars’s development and operation of an expanded casino on Pauma’s reservation, and the merger during the negotiations of Caesars and Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc. (Harrah’s), which operates a nearby casino for the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (Rincon). ¹ In Harrah’s appeal, the issue is whether a $ 30 million judgment against it on the cause of action in Pauma’s complaint for intentional interference with prospective economic relations must be reversed because the jury’s special verdict is fatally inconsistent. We answer the question in the affirmative. The complaint’s causes of action for a violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq.), and for tortious interference were both predicated solely on the same alleged wrong, an agreement between Harrah’s and Caesars to restrain trade by allocating or dividing customers or territories. The jury found in Harrah’s favor on the Cartwright Act claim, but in Pauma’s favor on the tortious interference claim. Because the inconsistency cannot be reconciled, we reverse the judgment insofar as it concerns these two causes of action against Harrah’s, and direct the court to enter an order granting Harrah’s motion for a new trial.