How to Prepare Jury Instructions

Useful Rulings on How to Prepare Jury Instructions

Recent Rulings on How to Prepare Jury Instructions

LA LIVE PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS KA WAIKWAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Defendants/Cross-Complainants assert that trying the claims together would not unnecessarily complicate their resolution because the claims arise under the same operative facts and any potential jury confusion that could be present is a nominal risk that can be addressed with jury instructions. (Moy Opp., p. 4:7-22.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

F&R REAL ESTATE INC VS PANCHO VILLA 2 LLC

Further, it does not appear that the jury instructions would be judicially noticeable under the cited provisions. See LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1022, 1049 (jury instructions "not be cited as authority for legal principles"). The Court sustains defendant's objections to the declaration of Zoe Gayle Villaroman in its entirety. The declaration lacks foundation and personal knowledge and constitutes improper lay opinion and expert testimony.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Unlawful Detainer

MICHELLE VEGA VS KIPP LA SCHOOLS

INTERSECTIONAL DISCRIMINATION Kipp argues that Vega cannot present a claim of discrimination for all of the reasons discussed above, but further argues that no claim for “intersectional” discrimination can be made, based an intersection of protected characteristics including Vega’s status as a woman of color, because there are no civil jury instructions for such a claim, because Vega was fired for dishonesty, and because Kipp is an equal opportunity employer in which women of color occupy various high-level

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JASON PERSINGER, ET AL. VS WELLS FARGO BANK NA

Hopkins notes that there are California civil jury instructions concerning both equitable estoppel and equitable tolling, suggesting that the existence of these jury instructions means that a jury is to decide these issues. (See CACI Nos. 456, 457.) However, the existence of such instructions does not demonstrate that a party has a right to a jury trial on these equitable issues.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MIGUEL ANGEL OLVERA, ET AL. V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC.

While the Court finds the second cause of action sufficiently clear even with the reference to fitness in paragraph 31, the parties remain able to refine theories through contention interrogatories or jury instructions. Footnote 3:

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ADELINA CORCIO, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

In support, Plaintiffs cite to the Civil Jury Instructions promulgated by the Judicial Council (CACI). CACI 3201 require a plaintiff to show that the defendant “did not promptly replace or buy back the vehicle.” CACI 3201 does not reference buyback offers made by the manufacturer. Plaintiffs’ contention is unpersuasive. As GM points out, courts have concluded that a manufacturer’s prompt offer to replace or repurchase the vehicle satisfies this requirement. (De Leon v. Ford Motor Company (C.D.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

WINDSOR CAPITAL GROUP INC VS JOHN MOLLER ET

On February 28, 2020, the parties filed motions in limine, proposed jury instructions, trial briefs, exhibit lists, and witness lists. The witness list filed by the Moller defendants included Michael Matkins. Many oppositions and/or objections to motions in limine and proposed jury instructions were filed beginning on March 3, and up through March 6, with some reply briefs filed March 9.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

GONZALES VS. BRENTWOOD UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case discussed jury instructions and did not say that there is a heightened pleading standard when suing a minor for negligence. The Court finds that the allegations of negligence against Mateus are sufficiently alleged. The demurrer to cause of action three is overruled. Cause of Action Four (Intentional Tort) against Mateus As to Mateus, the fourth cause of action alleges that he intentionally caused Lucas to fall from the playground apparatus by pushing his feet off the apparatus.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

BEATRIX ARCHINAL, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, ET AL.

An “emergency situation” and “immediate injury” are also included in jury instructions discussing the application of the rescue doctrine. (CACI No. 453.) Nowhere in the Complaint do Robert and Claudia allege that an emergency situation which threatened immediate injury to Archinal existed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BEATRIX ARCHINAL, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, ET AL.

An “emergency situation” and “immediate injury” are also included in jury instructions discussing the application of the rescue doctrine. (CACI No. 453.) Nowhere in the Complaint do Robert and Claudia allege that an emergency situation which threatened immediate injury to Archinal existed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BEATS ELECTRONICS LLC ET AL VS MONSTER LLC ET AL

If such evidence is deemed excluded pursuant to a motion in limine, the appropriate means of challenging jury instructions regarding excluded evidence is to object and resolve informally which jury instructions will be presented to the jurors. 2. [14:204] Chambers Conference to Settle Jury Instructions: After all proposed jury instructions have been submitted, and before final argument, the judge and counsel meet outside the presence of jurors (normally in chambers) to resolve which jury instructions will be

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

BERHOLTZ VS VENTANA GLOBAL LTD

The jury instructions are in the CACI 300 series. The elements of the implied covenant claim (count 3) are set forth in CACI 325. C. The essential elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim (count 4) are: (1) fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the duty; and (3) damage caused by the breach. (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 182; Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BERHOLTZ VS VENTANA GLOBAL LTD

The jury instructions are in the CACI 300 series. The elements of the implied covenant claim (count 3) are set forth in CACI 325. C. The essential elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim (count 4) are: (1) fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the duty; and (3) damage caused by the breach. (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 182; Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PAUL HIGNIGHT VS. MERCEDED-BENZ USA, LLC;

/n [1] The Court notes that several hours were spent by Terry Baker regarding the verdict forms and jury instructions. The Court recalls that it ordered defense counsel to meet and confer with plaintiff's counsel to reach an agreement on several outstanding issues on the verdict forms and instructions. Disregarding the Court's explicit order, defense counsel instead met with her clients, thereby likely prolonging the hours spent by plaintiff's counsel both out of court and in court.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CHAPPELL VS. DREW

No pre-trial motions, no proposed jury instructions, or any other documents suggestive of preparation for a jury trial have been submitted to the court. Given the lack of notice to this court that the parties have prepared for trial to be conducted on March 16, this court notifies the parties that other matters may be given preference ahead of this case.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

HEATHER LEHR ET AL VS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK ET AL

In addition, bifurcation imposes a clear burden on a jury and the court in the event two phases are necessary, which appears very likely here to at least one defendant, including the inconvenience of having to deal with two sets of procedures, closing arguments, jury instructions, and deliberations. This may be particularly burdensome to a jury here, which will already be hearing a particularly long civil case. The motion therefore is denied.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ABIGAIL BOLDE VS NAVISTAR INC ET AL

Any risk of undue prejudice can be mitigated through jury instructions. The Court has considered all of the evidence presented by all of the parties, and in the exercise of its discretion, declines to order separate trials on liability and damages under sections 598 or 1048(b). While bifurcation is appropriate in some cases, the Court exercises its discretion to deny bifurcation here. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

GALLI VS CARPENTER

Nor has either party submitted any other document that might be submitted in anticipation of a jury trial such as proposed jury instructions, in limine motions, or a trial brief.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RINCON BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS OF THE RINCON RESERVATION CALIFORNIA VS FLYNT [E-FILE]

The applicable jury instructions for the public nuisance claims (SAC, counts one and three) start at CACI 2020.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL CIROVIC V. POUL NORHOLM

Moreover, the Cirovics’ counsel failed to request jury instructions that the jury may not consider, or include as any part of any award, attorney fees or expenses that the parties incurred in bringing or defending this lawsuit. (CACI 3964). In opposing this motion, Defendants argue that the Cirovics have forfeited their right to argue that attorney fees were improperly awarded by the jury.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

RINCON BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS OF THE RINCON RESERVATION CALIFORNIA VS FLYNT [E-FILE]

The applicable jury instructions for the public nuisance claims (SAC, counts one and three) start at CACI 2020.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NEAL ARMSTRONG, ET AL. VS ANDREW S. MALATSKEY, M.D., ET AL.

California Civil Jury Instructions for Medical Negligence (CACI No. 500) refers the reader to the jury instructions for negligence (CACI No. 400) which identifies the “essential factual elements” that a plaintiff must show, including that: (1) the defendant was negligent, (2) the plaintiff was harmed, and (3) defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SPITZFADEN 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

    Mar 04, 2020

  • 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

    Mar 03, 2020

  • 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

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 51     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.