What is Juror Misconduct?

Useful Resources for Juror Misconduct

Recent Rulings on Juror Misconduct

MILDRED MANCE, BY AND THROUGH HER REPRESENATIVE AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, REGINA MANCE VS GLEN PARK AT VALLEY VILLAGE

PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) Elder abuse and neglect, (2) Willful misconduct, and (3) Negligence. On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff added Marina Pink and Tillman Pink, Jr. by way of Doe amendments. Defendant Marina Pink filed an answer on January 6, 2021. Defendant Tillman Pink, Jr. filed two motions to quash service of the summons for lack jurisdiction due to defective service, which will be heard on February 25, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

MILDRED MANCE, BY AND THROUGH HER REPRESENATIVE AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, REGINA MANCE VS GLEN PARK AT VALLEY VILLAGE

PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) Elder abuse and neglect, (2) Willful misconduct, and (3) Negligence. On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff added Marina Pink and Tillman Pink, Jr. by way of Doe amendments. Defendant Marina Pink filed an answer on January 6, 2021. Defendant Tillman Pink, Jr. filed two motions to quash service of the summons for lack jurisdiction due to defective service, which will be heard on February 25, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

VN PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS MACAULEY EKPENISI, ET AL.

When prior proceedings are terminated by means other than a trial, the termination must reflect on the merits of the case and the malicious prosecution plaintiff's innocence of the misconduct alleged in the underlying lawsuit.” (HMS Capital, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 214, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 786.) If the evidence of the circumstances of the termination is conflicted, “ ‘the determination of the reasons underlying the dismissal is a question of fact.’ ” (Sycamore Ridge Apartments LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KELKER PHARMA INC VS QURASHI

Defendant allegedly began accusing Kelker, Tariq and Khan of illicit activities, including fraud to customers and threatening to inform government agencies of alleged misconduct. Defendant also falsely represented to Kelker’s customers that he was a partner of Plaintiff Better Bar Manufacturing, LLC (“Better Bar”), which is a business entity owned and operated by Tariq, Khan and others to manufacture products for Kelker.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

JUDITH GOTTESMAN VSI DWANA BAIN

Unlike sanctions imposed as a penalty for the nine types of discovery misconduct itemized in 001’. § 2023.010, an award of costs of proof for a denial ofa request for admission involves the weighing of a number of factors, such as whether the matter denied was of ‘substantial importance’; whether there was a ‘reasonable basis’ for the denial; whether the party making the denial knew or should have known at the time that the requested matter was of ‘substantial importance’ and was true; whether there were ‘other

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

WILLIAM SZYMCZAK, ET AL. V. PATRICK GIRGIS, NATURAL HEALING CENTER, LLC, ET AL.

Some underlying misconduct on the part of the defendant must be shown to invoke the right to this equitable remedy. (Green Valley Landowners Assn. v. City of Vallejo (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 425, 442-443, quoting Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1136-1137.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

ESTATE OF THOMAS J. BYRNE VS. OWENS

This is a corporate dissolution and shareholder misconduct suit brought by Plaintiff Estate, 50% owner of Defendant NBO, against NBO and Mel T. Owens (“Owens”) who owns the remaining 50%. Defendants were both initially represented by the Law Offices of Paul S. Nash, APC. On 12/17/19, Defendants filed a substitution of attorney, substituting in Mel T. Owens to represent himself in pro per; however, Mr. Nash remains as counsel for NBO.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

MAXIMINO SOTO VS DE ROBLIN, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;, ET AL.

City of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 860, 880 (“However, because [FEHA] does not create a stand-alone tort, the employee has no cause of action for a failure to investigate unlawful harassment or retaliation, unless actionable misconduct occurred.”) The demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. 4. Fourth Cause of Action (Retaliation—Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.) A. Re: Failure To Timely File DFEH Complaint Against Defendant De Roblin.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JEREMY BAKER VS OUT THE BLUE RECORDS, LLC, ET AL.

“A member’s duty of care to a limited liability company and the other members in the conduct and winding up of the activities of the limited liability company is limited to refraining from engaging in grossly negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation of law.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GENESIS MEDIA LLC VS OWNZONES MEDIA NETWORK INC ET AL

. § 437c(t), on the grounds that there is no merit to that affirmative defense because the cross defendants conduct was justified and there is no relationship between the alleged misconduct to any alleged injuries suffered by Ownzones Media Network. Issue 6: Cross Defendant Howard Misle will move this Court for an order granting summary adjudication pursuant to Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALEJANDRO PULIDO VS BLUEMERCURY, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff maintains that he “does not allege a single act or isolated acts, but a pattern and campaign of harassment and bullying that culminated in a threatened lawsuit against Plaintiff’s employer if it did not prevent him from making legally protected complaints about Defendant’s misconduct, and that in response to Defendant’s threat, Plaintiffs’ employer terminated his employment.” (Id. at p. 5:2-7, referencing FAC, ¶¶16-23, 25, 33-40, 46-53, 78-81.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE LP VS. HONARKAR

As such, Moving Party fails to show any intentional misconduct by the witness. Moving Party’s request for a protective order is denied in part and granted in part. As an initial matter, Moving Party fails to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve this dispute. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2017.020(a), 2025.420(a).) Moving Party also fails to show good cause for the protective order sought. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Stadish v. Super.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

TAMI KIM ALAN VS SUSAN ARNHEITER, ET AL.

Based upon the first amended complaint, this appears to be the only way in which Defendants allegedly profited from their alleged misconduct at Plaintiff’s expense, entitling her to restitution, though such a claim would be entirely duplicative of the fourth cause of action. (See Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 173.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

MICHAEL RATHBUN ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

As explained above, the Complaint alleges that Camacho engaged in a pattern of threatening behaviors directed at Sexton in retaliation for Sexton’s attempts to redress Camacho’s prior incidents of violence, and (at the direction of superiors) with the intent to prevent future reports of misconduct.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LAUREN MARY WRIGHT VS SHAWN MERHIAN

“Three essential elements must be present to raise a negligent act to the level of willful misconduct: (1) actual or constructive knowledge of the peril to be apprehended, (2) actual or constructive knowledge that injury is a probable, as opposed to a possible, result of the danger, and (3) conscious failure to act to avoid the peril. [Citations.]” (Manuel v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 927, 945.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RAJI RAB VS. ALEX PADILLA SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In so finding, the Court relied on In re Cryer (1926) 77 Cal.App. 605, a case in which the court held that an elector contesting the results of an election based on misconduct had to allege the misconduct with “some definite particularity” because “[i]t is absurd to suppose that a single elector, without any information on which to base his complaint, is entitled to impose on the superior court the burden of recounting the entire vote cast by the electors, in a great city in which there are hundreds of thousands

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

START INC VS NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

Finally, National Fire contends that plaintiff’s assertions of possible juror confusion fall flat, and asserts that the contention that jurors may be confused by different insurance coverage issues is speculative. In an action consolidated for trial, pleadings, verdicts, findings, and judgments are separate; the actions are tried together for convenience and judicial economy.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ARNO PATRICK KUIGOUA VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

The ALJ noted, "Given [Petitioner's] paramount concem for himself and the absence of expression of remorse or appreciation for his misconduct, the likelihood of recurrence is significant." (AR 2812.) I Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the ALJ's decision to uphold Petitioner's termination was a manifest abuse of discretion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

ARNO PATRICK KUIGOUA VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

The ALJ noted, “Given [Petitioner’s] paramount concern for himself and the absence of expression of remorse or appreciation for his misconduct, the likelihood of recurrence is significant.” (AR 2812.) Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the ALJ’s decision to uphold Petitioner’s termination was a manifest abuse of discretion. III.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

JENNY BELFORTE ET AL VS REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

“Any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury or death to another person or in any injury to the property of another shall be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages, and the parent or guardian having custody and control shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages resulting from the willful misconduct. [¶] Subject to the provisions of subdivision (c), the joint and several liability of the parent or

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

SONNENSHEIN VS PACIFIC UNION

Teed, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th 280 held that a victim of fraud in a real estate purchase perpetrated by a fiduciary, specifically a real estate broker in that case, is entitled to recover both out-of-pocket damages and benefit-of-the bargain damages under Civil Code §§ 1709 and 3333 in order to be fully compensated for the damage caused by the fiduciary's misconduct. (Id. at 291.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

SALVADOR DELGADILLO, ET AL. VS CARLOS P CASIM, ET AL.

Dependent Adult Abuse Defendants argue Plaintiff’s single allegation gives rise to a simple negligence claim, and does not rise to the level of misconduct necessary to give rise to a claim for dependent adult abuse.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NICK NICHOLS VS CITY OF BURBANK

charged with the same allegations of misconduct, and were both disciplined.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RAJI RAB VS. ALEX PADILLA SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In so finding, the Court relied on In re Cryer (1926) 77 Cal.App. 605, a case in which the court held that an elector contesting the results of an election based on misconduct had to allege the misconduct with "some definite particularity" because "[i]t is absurd to suppose that a single elector, without any information on which to base his complaint, is entitled to impose on the superior court the burden of recounting the entire vote cast by the electors, in a great city in which there are hundreds of thousands

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

YEHOSHUA SORSCHER VS FAB4, 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; or (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, 218-219.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 278     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.