How to Prepare Jury Instructions

Useful Rulings on How to Prepare Jury Instructions

Recent Rulings on How to Prepare Jury Instructions

MOORE V. GATES

(See Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2013), CACI No. 2540; see also, Gov. Code § 12940(a).) In October 2016, Field required time off for treatment of his cataracts, and received paid medical leave for his procedures. (UMF 52, 53.) Plaintiff presents evidence that Gates imposed unreasonable burdens on Field, including deadlines to complete work, which did not accommodate and directly conflicted with Field’s medical procedures, and did not seem happy that Field was taking time off.

  • Hearing

TAMIKO BROWNLEE VS MISSION CONTROL MEDIA INC ET AL

(See CACI 4304 (jury instructions for terminating a “lease/rental agreement/sublease” due to a breach of contract).) Assuming arguendo there is a distinction between the two, this distinction has no reasonable bearing on the distinction between a lease and license. C.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DAVID TRUE VS LAYTON CAPITAL CORP ET AL

Jury Instructions – There is no joint list of jury instructions signed by both parties.

  • Hearing

HOUSTON V. SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS

(Judicial Counsel of California Civil Jury Instructions [“CACI”] 1900.) There are no facts alleged to support a cause of action for Intentional Misrepresentation. Where the defendant makes false statements, honestly believing that they are true, but without reasonable ground for such belief, he may be liable for negligent misrepresentation, a form of deceit. If defendant's belief ‘is both honest and reasonable, the misrepresentation is innocent and there is no tort liability.’ ” (Diediker v.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Robert S

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

XERA HEALTH LLC VS SCHEELE

The relevant jury instructions are in the CACI 300 series. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (FAC count 4) is the subject of CACI 325. C. To establish that a contract exists (the first element), the plaintiff must prove there has been a "meeting of the [parties'] minds on all material points." Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 359.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CAL PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION & REMODEL INC VS TANNER

The jury instructions are in the CACI 300 series. 3. Request for Judicial Notice. Defendant again seeks judicial notice of prior pleadings in this action. ROA 45. The court re-states and reiterates part 3 of the July 31 ruling (ROA 39). 4. Discussion and Ruling. The demurrer to count 1 is overruled.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GHAEEM VS NAMVAR

The jury instructions are in the CACI 300 series. The elements of the implied covenant claim (count 4 of FAC) are in CACI 325. B. The essential elements of a fraud cause of action (several counts of FAC) are: (1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GHAEEM VS NAMVAR

The jury instructions are in the CACI 300 series. The elements of the implied covenant claim (count 4 of FAC) are in CACI 325. B. The essential elements of a fraud cause of action (several counts of FAC) are: (1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JANE DOE VS DALE POE REAL ESTATE, INC., ET AL.

Defendant would have ample time to consult a jury consultant, have a mock trial, and prepare and review necessary jury instructions. It should be noted that at the March 20, 2019, case management conference plaintiff and defendant made a request for jury trial. It should also be noted that the Court gave notice on May 7, 2020, that the “Jury Trial” was continued to September 15, 2020. On July 30, 2020, at the informal discovery conference, the court continued the “Jury Trial” to February 9, 2021.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RICARDO MARTINEZ VS UMESH C. PATEL, ET AL.

Defendants themselves provide the judicial council civil jury instructions for NIED, which shows that trial courts routinely treat NIED as an independent cause of action. The Court finds Plaintiff alleges he rented a motel room from Defendants, which gives rise to a duty to provide a clean and habitable motel room. Plaintiff alleges Defendants instead provided a room infested with bed bugs. It is foreseeable that doing so would cause emotional distress.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VOIT VENTURES INC VS FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS OF SAN DIEGO INC

The jury instructions are in the CACI 300 series. The elements of the implied covenant claim are set forth in CACI 325. 3. Evidentiary Objections. Plaintiffs submitted several evidentiary objections in connection with its reply brief. ROA 41. The objections attack the Malki declaration and the Butler-Cohen declaration. Although a proposed order was not provided, the court created its own and has ruled separately on the objections. ROA 45. 4. Discussion and Ruling.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VOIT VENTURES INC VS FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS OF SAN DIEGO INC

The jury instructions are in the CACI 300 series. The elements of the implied covenant claim are set forth in CACI 325. 3. Evidentiary Objections. Plaintiffs submitted several evidentiary objections in connection with its reply brief. ROA 41. The objections attack the Malki declaration and the Butler-Cohen declaration. Although a proposed order was not provided, the court created its own and has ruled separately on the objections. ROA 45. 4. Discussion and Ruling.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RIHA VS SULLIVAN

Jury Instructions for punitive damages define "Despicable conduct" as "conduct that is so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people." (CACI 3940.) Despicable conduct "has been described as '[having] the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.'" (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287 [citation omitted].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

RIHA VS SULLIVAN

Jury Instructions for punitive damages define "Despicable conduct" as "conduct that is so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people." (CACI 3940.) Despicable conduct "has been described as '[having] the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.'" (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287 [citation omitted].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ALLIED PUBLIC ADJUSTERS, INC. VS BERJ NEIL ALIKSANIAN, ET AL.

The elements of the first cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets are described as follows in California’s template for jury instructions: 1. That [name of plaintiff] [owned/was a licensee of] [the following:][describe each item claimed to be a trade secret that is subject to the misappropriation claim]; 2. That [this/these] [select short term to describe, e.g., information] [was/were] [a] trade secret[s] at the time of the misappropriation; 3.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VAHIK AMERIAN VS GRIGOR SARKISSIAN D D S ET AL

Each of these causes of action entails different elements, different evidentiary showings, and different jury instructions. As such, these causes of action are not duplicative and are not subject to demurrer on this basis. B. Second Cause of Action “ ‘[A] physician has a fiduciary duty to disclose all information material to the patient’s decision,’ when soliciting a patient’s consent to a medical procedure. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

MITCHELL V LENTS HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST LENTS FORMER COUNSEL BY BLAKE WALTER DUNLAP, BLAKE WALTER DUNLAPINDEPENDENTEXECUTOR

The pretrial documents consist of (1) a joint statement of parties, (2) a stipulation reciting the precise facts or legal issues, (3) a joint statement of claims and defenses, (4) a joint statement of the case, (5) a joint witness list, (6) a joint exhibit list, (7) the form jury instructions and any special jury instructions, (8) an agreed-upon verdict form. (Local Rule, title 3, rule 3401(4)(a)-(d).) The amount requested by Mr.

  • Hearing

NICOLE BRAZIER VS. ROBERT DOUGLAS FREY MD

(See Judicial Council of California, Civil Jury Instructions ("CACI"), No. 530A.) While the issue of accidental injury to the spine arising from the shoulder rhizotomy also involves the issue of informed consent, that circumstance does not preclude plaintiff from alleging a medical battery cause of action. The two are not mutually exclusive. (3) The Court SUSTAINS the general demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for general negligence WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ANTHONY K. CHU VS LONG Z. LIU, ET AL.

The standard for probable cause was set forth by the California Supreme Court in Bertero as follows: “National and Klein next object to certain jury instructions. They first complain of an instruction that ". . . [if] a person initiating a judicial proceeding does not have an actual and honest belief in the validity of the claim asserted by him then he does not have a [sic] probable cause to initiate such proceedings." This is a correct statement of the law.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HOWARD VS FCA US LLC

The jury instructions are in CACI series 3200. B. California follows the "American rule," under which each party to a lawsuit ordinarily must pay his, her or its own attorney fees. Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 230, 237; Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 278; Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 498, 504.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THE CALIFORNIA SPIRITS COMPANY LLC VS CAPNA FABRICATION

The jury instructions are in the CACI 300 series. B. In a commercial setting, remedies available to a seller in the event of a buyer's breach of contract are set forth in Commercial Code sections 2703-2710. C. Attachment is a prejudgment remedy which requires a court to make a preliminary determination of the merits of a dispute. Lorber Industries v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HANSIK INC VS PAG MOOGA INC ET AL

No later than November 2, 2020, Defendant is ordered to send to Plaintiff proposed joint statement of the case, joint witness list, joint exhibit list, joint jury instructions (full text), joint list of proposed jury instructions, joint verdict form, and joint page and line designations for deposition and former testimony.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE KONIGSBERG COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

See also, Judicial Counsel of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), Instruction no. 1901. (2020). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were under a duty to provide Plaintiffs with a participation statement accounting every six months under the 1986 Agreement. See FAC, ¶¶27-29, 58. Defendants issued one participation statement in 1995 and did not issue another one until 3-14-19. Id. at ¶57.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MORRIS V. CHO

(Jury Instructions filed on 2-5-20 under ROA No. 257.) The jury awarded Plaintiff $30,000.00 for future medical expenses. (Schneberg Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit 1.) The court’s trial notes from 1-22-20 reflect that Plaintiff testified she did not have insurance. (Please advise the court if there is a dispute as to whether Plaintiff was insured or uninsured during the time she received treatment from medical providers as shown by the evidence.) On direct examination, Dr.

  • Hearing

RUIZ VS FERRERA

Jury Instructions for punitive damages define "[d]espicable conduct" as "conduct that is so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people." (CACI 3940.) Despicable conduct "has been described as '[having] the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.'" (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287 [citation omitted].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 54     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.