What is Juror Misconduct?

Useful Rulings on Juror Misconduct

Recent Rulings on Juror Misconduct

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Here, the alleged misconduct is entirely in the past, and there is no ongoing relationship between Plaintiff and Emanate. Plaintiff, moreover, closed its practice as of January 26, 2018. (Beharie Decl., ¶45.) Emanate, then, is entitled to summary adjudication of Issue No. 37. The court determines that Emanate’s Issue No. 38, then, is moot. Fifth Cause of Action: Violation of Cartwright Act (Business & Professions Code Section 16700, et seq.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SYLVIA RENE SUMMERS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

“California state contract law does not allow a nonsignatory to enforce an arbitration agreement based upon a mere allegation of collusion or interdependent misconduct between a signatory and nonsignatory.” (Id. at 1132-1133.) The Court finds that Defendants’ citation to Goldman is not persuasive.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KATIE O CONNELL MARSH VS GAUMONT TELEVISION USA LLC

In connection with the seventh cause of action in the SAC, Plaintiff alleges that: (1) herself and Gaumont were parties to the Termination Agreement which is a valid and binding contract (Id. at ¶ 96); (2) at all relevant times, Moving Defendant was aware of the Termination Agreement and its terms (Id. at ¶ 97); (3) Moving Defendant collaborated and/or participated with Gaumont in the misconduct because Moving Defendant knew it would benefit from such misconduct (Id. at ¶ 98); (4) Moving Defendant benefitted

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

XIAOFAN SUN VS HRC FERTILITY CLINIC, ET AL.

However, “[a]nalytically, the question of whether a tort is committed within the course of employment turns on whether (1) the act performed was either required or incidental to the employee's duties or (2) the employee's misconduct could be reasonably foreseen as an outgrowth of the employee's duties.” (Id. at 138) (quoting Rita M. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1453, 1456.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TIFFANIE CALDWELL, ET AL. VS SAMAN BEHNAM, ET AL.

Motion to Strike Emotional Distress Damages “[M]ere negligence will not support a recovery for mental suffering where the defendant's tortious conduct has resulted in only economic injury to the plaintiff…. where a plaintiff sufficiently alleges intentional or affirmative misconduct by an attorney or noneconomic injury resulting from an attorney's professional negligence, recovery of emotional distress damages is permitted.” (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1040.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

APS&EE, LLC VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

To determine whether the penalty is reasonable, courts consider the following factors: (1) the nature and extent of the violation; (2) the number and severity of the violations; (3) the economic effect of the penalty on the violator; (4) whether the violator took good faith measures to comply with the Act and the time these measures were taken; (5) the willfulness of the violator’s misconduct; (6) the deterrent effect that the imposition of the penalty would have on both the violator and the regulated community

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ELLIS MCGEHEE VS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, ET AL.

BACKGROUND On November 13, 2018, plaintiff Ellis McGehee filed a complaint against defendants City of Manhattan Beach and David James Gibbons for (1) statutory liability, (2) gross negligence/reckless misconduct, and (3) negligence/negligent supervision/negligent retention. On July 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) statutory liability and (2) negligence/negligent supervision/negligent retention based on a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 3, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

LINDA MENDOZA RAZO VS JIMMY HANG, DPT

If Plaintiff is able to plead specific facts which show that Regents was aware of prior, substantiated claims of misconduct by Hang and that Regents ratified such prior conduct or that Regents ratified the alleged misconduct committed against Plaintiff, Plaintiff may be able to amend her pleading to state viable claims against Regents.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HUYNH, ET AL. V. MISSION DE LA CASA NURSING AND REHABILITATION CTR., ET AL.

Nevertheless, our conclusion that the Legislature intended the Elder Abuse Act to sanction only egregious acts of misconduct distinct from professional negligence contravenes any suggestion that, in defining “elder abuse” to include failure to provide medical care, the Legislature intended that health care providers, alone among elder custodians, would enjoy under the Act the procedural protections they enjoy when sued for negligence in their professional health care practice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ROEBBELEN VS. WEST CONTRA COSTA U.S.D.

citations, claims, costs, damages, demands, judgments, liabilities (legal, administrative or otherwise), losses, notices, expenses, fines, penalties, proceedings, responsibilities, violations, attorney’s and consultants’ fees and causes of action to property or persons, including personal injury and/or death (“Claim(s)”), to the extent that the Claim(s) arises out of, pertains to, or relates to the negligent errors or omissions (active or passive, ordinary or gross), recklessness (ordinary or gross), or willful misconduct

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

STEVEN POWERS VS MARCOS VIVIAN, ET AL.

Instead, Berkley held that Plaintiff’s elder abuse cause of action was not sufficiently pled because Plaintiff was not permitted to incorporate facts by reference from her negligence/willful misconduct cause of action. (Id. At 529-530.) As such, the court will not sustain Moving Defendants’ demurrer on this basis. However, the court finds that the FAC is insufficiently pled as to elder abuse cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BALDOMERO ENRIQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

In aggravation, Enriquez did not accept responsibility for his misconduct and sent text messages to Wife in which he threatened to contact the high school where she worked regarding unspecified naked photographs. AR 56. Goldman felt that the need of the SBSD to investigate Enriquez misconduct embarrassed the Department. AR 56.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

EMIL MATUSENKO ET AL VS DALCO FORENSIC CONSULTANTS INC ET AL

If the status or misconduct which is urged as a ground for disqualification of attorney will have a continuing effect on the judicial proceedings which are before the court, it is justified in refusing to permit the lawyer to participate in such proceedings. (Koo v. Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 719, 734.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROSEMARY WOODS VS RAZ INVESTMENTS,INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

However, as discussed above, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged DLD Defendants engaged in any misconduct in connection with the conspiracy. In addition, Plaintiff does not meet her burden of addressing how the defect in the pleadings can be cured via amendment. Based on the foregoing, DLD Defendants’ demurrer to the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th causes of action is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

CLEMONS VS HTRCE LP

Plaintiff also asserts that her insurance claim for damages was denied because of a mold exclusion, thus there is an argument that the business loss was a result of the hazardous substances caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct. In reply, defendant argues that the complaint does not set forth "sufficient allegations" to support gross negligence or willful misconduct.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROGER VOLODARSKY VS GRAHAM GIBSON

Rather, the evidence Plaintiff presents is that Defendant has visited California several times in the past few years unrelated to Defendant’s alleged misconduct. In addition, Plaintiff’s untimely arguments and evidence relating to Defendant’s communications with Ryan Fitt (“Fitt”) do not constitute new facts or law given that Plaintiff previously submitted this evidence in the underlying motion. (Brief, pgs. 3-6.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ADAM NADELSON MD VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Nadelson's final argument is that he was effectively disciplined for uncharged misconduct, and thus denied due process. The Court disagrees. It is tme that the "holder of a professional license has a property interest in the right to practice his or her profession, which cannot be taken away or restricted without due process." {Hansen v. Board of Registered Nursing (2012) 208 Cal.App.4^ 664, 673.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

ADAM NADELSON MD VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Nadelson’s final argument is that he was effectively disciplined for uncharged misconduct, and thus denied due process. The Court disagrees. It is true that the “holder of a professional license has a property interest in the right to practice his or her profession, which cannot be taken away or restricted without due process.” (Hansen v. Board of Registered Nursing (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 664, 673.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

CENTERPOINTE TIC #1, LLC, ET AL. VS VEREIT, INC. FKA AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL.

In other words, allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by signatories and nonsignatories, standing alone, are not enough: the allegations of interdependent misconduct must be founded in or intimately connected with the obligations of the underlying agreement. [Fn. Omitted.] (Goldman v. KPMG, LLP (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 209, 219 [emphasis in original].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KENNETH A LOVEMAN VS AILEEN LEAVITT

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) partition of property, (5) accounting, (6) willful misconduct, (7) negligence, and (8) restitution and unjust enrichment. The FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows. Morton and Leavitt were sisters. Morton and Leavitt formed a partnership in the real estate business (Partnership).

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KIM NGO VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC , ET AL.

The doctrine applies in either of two circumstances: (1) when the signatory must rely on the terms of the written agreement containing the arbitration clause in asserting its claims against the nonsignatory and (2) when the signatory alleges “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct” by the nonsignatory and a signatory and the alleged misconduct is “founded in or intimately connected with the obligations of the underlying agreement.” (Goldman v. KPMG, LLP (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 209, 218-19.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

JESUS IGNACIO VALENZUELA, ET AL. VS LAWNDALE HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE LLC, ET AL.

By not demurring to the willful misconduct cause of action, Defendants have in effect conceded that Plaintiffs adequately stated a cause of action for willful misconduct based on understaffing. Plaintiffs have thus sufficiently pleaded entitlement to punitive damages based on Defendants’ misconduct in failing to provide adequate training. Accordingly, the motion to strike punitive damages from the second cause of action is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

POMS & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE BROKERS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MELINDA BARTON

Plaintiff cites no supporting authority for its argument that it should not be forced to file separate lawsuits to address other parties’ misconduct. (Opposition at p. 5.) If and when Plaintiff identifies other defendants, it can then be determined whether those other defendants are also subject to the arbitration provision, and if not, how litigation against them should proceed. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration is DENIED AS MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

LOPEZ VS NATIONAL GENERAL ASSURANCE

The second step is that if the court finds the evidence is admissible, it must then consider whether the facts establish misconduct. Lastly, once misconduct has been established, prejudice is presumed and reversal is required unless the reviewing court finds, upon examination of the entire record, there is no substantial likelihood that any juror was improperly influenced to the defendant's detriment. In this case it is clear that counsel’s declarations do not pass the first step of this three- part test.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

CHRISTOPHER S. VINCENT, ET AL. V. JOI K. STEPHENS

Stephens’s alleged misconduct in administering the sub-trusts (In the Matter of the Stephens Family Trust dated November 13, 1987, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 15PR00482). On April 15, 2016, pursuant to a Stipulation and Order in the case, Betty J. Stephens resigned as trustee of the sub-trusts and City National Bank was appointed as the new trustee. The Stipulation and Order required Betty J.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 231     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.