Jury - General vs. Specific Verdict

Useful Rulings on General Jury Verdict vs. Specific Jury Verdict

Recent Rulings on General Jury Verdict vs. Specific Jury Verdict

LOS ANGELES SMSA VS. JBM ENTERPRISES

Whether plaintiff is entitled to present the first and second counts to the trier of fact at trial as separate causes of action, and for example have special findings made separately as to each, is not determined at the pleading stage. The presentation of the case at trial is within the control and discretion of the trial judge. Although the court agrees with defendants that the form of plaintiff's complaint is not ideal, it will not raise form over substance.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

PALO CAPITAL, INC. V. CANNIVET

However, this Court notes that the confusion lies in the choice of general verdict forms: Pursuant to Labor Code §200, the term “wages” includes “all amounts for labor performed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculation.” As our Supreme Court pointed out in Schachter v. Citigroup.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

F&R REAL ESTATE INC VS PANCHO VILLA 2 LLC

Following a jury trial, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of Defendant. ROA # 176. The Court entered judgment for defendant on March 10, 2020. ROA # 198. The Court denied plaintiff's motion for new trial and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on May 26, 2020. Defendant timely filed its motion for attorney fees.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Unlawful Detainer

STEVE SNOECK VS EXAKTIME INNOVATIONS INC

On October 29, 2019, the Court signed and filed the judgment on general verdict. On November 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed his memorandum of costs. On December 2, 2019, Defendant filed the instant motion to strike Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs in its entirety, or in the alternative, to tax Plaintiff’s costs. ANALYSIS: A. Evidentiary Objections The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the original Marchlewski declaration, paragraphs 5 and 6 and Yang declaration, paragraphs 4 and 5.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

PENDZICH VS ADAMS

The jury got the case on the morning of September 13, deliberated, and the following day returned a general verdict. (The use of a general verdict was necessitated by the parties' obdurate refusal to even come close to agreement on the form of a special verdict.) The verdict was in favor of plaintiffs: $30,600 on the contract claim and $9600 on the non-contract claims. The jury also made a finding of oppression/malice. Polling was 11-1 on the damages awards and 10-2 on oppression/malice. ROA 125.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PENDZICH VS ADAMS

The jury got the case on the morning of September 13, deliberated, and the following day returned a general verdict. (The use of a general verdict was necessitated by the parties' obdurate refusal to even come close to agreement on the form of a special verdict.) The verdict was in favor of plaintiffs: $30,600 on the contract claim and $9600 on the non-contract claims. The jury also made a finding of oppression/malice. Polling was 11-1 on the damages awards and 10-2 on oppression/malice. ROA 125.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PENDZICH VS ADAMS

The jury got the case on the morning of September 13, deliberated, and the following day returned a general verdict. (The use of a general verdict was necessitated by the parties' obdurate refusal to even come close to agreement on the form of a special verdict.) The verdict was in favor of plaintiffs: $30,600 on the contract claim and $9600 on the non-contract claims. The jury also made a finding of oppression/malice. Polling was 11-1 on the damages awards and 10-2 on oppression/malice. ROA 125.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LUIS PEZZINI VS SILVINA EMA ZOLTZMAN

The award of attorney’s fees for prevailing on such a motion is mandatory “unless special findings support denial of fees.” Official Code Comment, 1993-94 A.J 4270. Defendant prevails on this motion, and it does not appear that plaintiff has acted with substantial justification. It is not clear why plaintiff has pursued this motion to expunge a lis pendens against real property against which plaintiff himself has recorded a lis pendens.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

VIASAT, INC VS ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

A general verdict is advantageous to the prevailing party because it implies findings in favor of the prevailing party on every contested issue of fact submitted to the jury [citation] The disadvantage (particularly for the losing party) is that a general verdict may conceal the jury's misunderstanding or even disregard of the judge's instructions. (Wegner, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Trials & Ev. (TRG, 2019) ¶ 17:5.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALEXYS GARCIA VS RYAN MICHAEL SCOTT NELSON ET AL

The court also observed: “The court will also hear argument concerning the need for special findings in this case, whether the finding sought will appropriately protect the rights of the minor in this matter, and whether the lien holder needs to have notice of any hearing re proportionate fault.” ANALYSIS: Under CCP § 372, an action of a minor may be compromised by a guardian ad litem “with the approval of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ALEXYS GARCIA VS RYAN MICHAEL SCOTT NELSON ET AL

The court will also hear argument concerning the need for special findings in this case, whether the finding sought will appropriately protect the rights of the minor in this matter, and whether the lien holder needs to have notice of any hearing re proportionate fault. Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action (Person with a Disability) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE OR CONTINUED for factual showing of comparative fault.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MICHAEL WU VS LINDA DIANE VARMA ET. AL.

The award of attorney’s fees for prevailing on such a motion is mandatory “unless special findings support denial of fees.” Official Code Comment, 1993-94 A.J 4270. Here, the motion is granted, and defendants, moving parties, request $8,911.50 (25 hours preparing motion at $350 per hour, $61.50 filing fee and $100 in further costs to have lis pendens expunged). These attorneys fees appear reasonable and are awarded. RULING: Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2019

MANN VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Third, the court is not persuaded that use of a general verdict, in light of the parties’ inability to agree on a special verdict form, or that any instructions given or not given, were error. (CCP 657(1), (7).) Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice: granted. Plaintiff’s objections to defense juror affidavits: MP’s evidentiary objections to RP’s juror affidavits: Sustain as to portion stating: “and considered each of the three claims individually.” (Ev. 1150(a).) Overrule as to remainder. Sustain.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2019

WENDY BENGE VS OLIVE DTLA ET AL

Defendants assert that “Plaintiff incorrectly argues that the Memorandum of Costs was untimely based on the date that Defendants filed their Proposed Judgment on the General Verdict,” not the Notice of Entry of Judgment. (Id. at p. 3:3-7.)

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

PENDZICH VS ADAMS

The jury got the case on the morning of September 13, deliberated, and the following day returned a general verdict. (The use of a general verdict was necessitated by the parties' obdurate refusal to even come close to agreement on the form of a special verdict.) The verdict was in favor of plaintiffs: $30,600.00 on the contract claim and $9600.00 on the non-contract claims. The jury also made a finding of oppression/malice. Polling was 11-1 on the damages awards and 10-2 on oppression/malice. ROA 125.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PENDZICH VS ADAMS

The jury got the case on the morning of September 13, deliberated, and the following day returned a general verdict. (The use of a general verdict was necessitated by the parties' obdurate refusal to even come close to agreement on the form of a special verdict.) The verdict was in favor of plaintiffs: $30,600.00 on the contract claim and $9600.00 on the non-contract claims. The jury also made a finding of oppression/malice. Polling was 11-1 on the damages awards and 10-2 on oppression/malice. ROA 125.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

STEVEN REDE ET AL. VS EJ WILLIAMS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

The motion for new trial is predicated upon the general verdict being "excessive". The verdict for general damages was $40,000, and the verdict for compensatory damages was $15,400. The Defense requests a new trial be ordered or that the Court remit the general damage verdict to $2,500 for "pain and suffering". In this Court's view, a total verdict of $55,400 is on the paltry or meager side.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2019

ESPERANZA D. BAGWELL VS. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

The award of attorney’s fees for prevailing on such a motion is mandatory “unless special findings support denial of fees.” Official Code Comment, 1993-94 A.J 4270. Here, there is no question that defendants have prevailed on this motion and plaintiff does not present evidence showing substantial justification. The fees and costs sought by plaintiff are $1,260 (3 hours preparing motion, 3 hours preparing for and attending hearing, at $200 per hour, plus $60 filing fee). These fees appear reasonable.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

JESUS ESTRADA MELENDEZ VS L A UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

After trial by jury, the general verdict was in favor of Plaintiff for $210,833. Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District Group moves for judgment notwithstanding verdict, a new trial, or in the alternative, a remittitur. TENTATIVE RULING: This Court has read and considered all moving papers/pleadings connected to these motions. No written tentative is issued at this time. Counsel to appear and argue.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2019

SUSANNA CONTRERAS SMITH ET AL VS MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL

General Verdict Form Defendants vaguely argue that a special verdict form would have been superior to a general verdict form. The Court considered these arguments at the time it elected to proceed with a general verdict form, and Defendants have identified no concrete ways — or even plausible theories — from which the Court could conclude the general verdict form used was somehow insufficient or the cause of any confusion. 10.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SUSANNA CONTRERAS SMITH ET AL VS MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL

General Verdict Form Defendants vaguely argue that a special verdict form would have been superior to a general verdict form. The Court considered these arguments at the time it elected to proceed with a general verdict form, and Defendants have identified no concrete ways — or even plausible theories — from which the Court could conclude the general verdict form used was somehow insufficient or the cause of any confusion. 10.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PENDZICH VS ADAMS

The jury got the case on the morning of September 13, deliberated, and the following day returned a general verdict. (The use of a general verdict was necessitated by the parties' obdurate refusal to even come close to agreement on the form of a special verdict.) The verdict was in favor of plaintiffs: $30,600 on the contract claim and $9600 on the non-contract claims. The jury also made a finding of oppression/malice. Polling was 11-1 on the damages awards and 10-2 on oppression/malice. ROA 125.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BRIAN JENSEN ET AL VS CAROLYN JO MYERS ET AL

A jury returned a general verdict against the landlord, and awarded $5,000 in damages, but did not award any punitive damages. (Ibid.) . . . [*901] . . . To the extent these cases acknowledged a tort claim, it was for wrongful constructive or actual eviction. (See Glaser v. Meyers (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 770, 774 [187 Cal. Rptr. 242] [citing Barkett in support of statement that “[t]ort actions to recover damages for willful wrongful evictions have long been recognized in California …”]; see also Munoz v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2018

ESZLINGER VS UNITED STUDIOS OF SELF DEFENSE, INC.

While the jury was never asked to make specific findings of malice/fraud/oppression on trademark infringement (see General Verdict on Cross-Compl., f. 9/13/12), in the end, this Court left intact a remitted punitive damages award in favor of cross-complainants, and against Eszlinger and Clark. (See 5/4/15 Mins., p. 2 and Amended Judgment ¶ 6, 7.) As the trademark infringement is the only claim on which Eszlinger and Clark are substantively liable, as to them, the punitive damages must be for this claim.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2018

MARIA FUENTES VS WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, ET AL.

The award of attorney’s fees for prevailing on such a motion is mandatory “unless special findings support denial of fees.” Official Code Comment, 1993-94 A.J 4270. Here, there is no question that plaintiff has prevailed on this motion, and defendants have not. Accordingly, no fees are awarded to defendants. Plaintiff in opposition had not requested fees, or provided evidence supporting what fees would be appropriately awarded. No fees are awarded to the plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

1 2 3     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.