
    Rosi GODINEZ, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED DAIRY, LLC, a limited liability company and Does, 1-20 inclusive, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 16-56339
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted February 8, 2018 Pasadena, California
    Filed March 8, 2018
    Donald C. Potter, Law Office of Donald Potter, Pasadena, CA, Marni Folinsky, Attorney, Makarem & Associates APLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Daniel H. Handman, Esquire, Attorney, Sayaka Karitani, Esquire, Attorney, Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: CALLAHAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, LLC appeals th'e district court’s judgment, following a jury trial, in favor of Rosi Godinez. Godi-nez filed a wrongful termination action after Alta-Dena fired her. The district court awarded $544,505 in damages, $557,150 in statutory attorneys’ fees, and $19,456.75 in expert fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude that there is no basis for setting aside the verdict, nor is there any reversible error.

1. The district court properly awarded front pay as an equitable remedy under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940, 12945, and the amount of front pay awarded by the jury was not excessive. See Boehm v. Am. Broad. Co., 929 F.2d 482, 488 (9th Cir. 1991); Horsford v. Bd. of Trs. of Cal. State Univ., 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 666-67 (2005).

2. The district court did not err in using a general verdict rather than a specific verdict form, as such a decision is generally left to the sound discretion of the court. See Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1395 (9th Cir. 1991); Landes Constr. Co. v. Royal Bank of Can., 833 F.2d 1365, 1374 (9th Cir. 1987).

3. The front and back pay damages were not too speculative, as the evidence supported such awards.

4. Godinez exhausted her administrative remedies as determined by the district court. See Rickards v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 206 Cal.App.4th 1523, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 916, 919-20 (2012); Blum v. Superior Court, 141 Cal.App.4th 418, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 902, 909 (2006).

5. The evidence was conflicting regarding the existence of an accommodation offer, and there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding. The record and instructions, taken as a whole, support the district court’s response to the jury question. See Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2001).

6. Substantial evidence supported the district court’s and jury’s findings and determinations on all of the remaining claims. See Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins., 373 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th Cir. 2004).

7.In awarding attorneys’ fees, the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings or abuse its discretion in determining the amount. See Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     