Under the California Constitution, trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all. (Enyart v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 499, 506.) The right to trial by jury includes the right to twelve impartial jurors. (Id.) An impartial jury is one in which no member has been improperly influenced and every member is capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it. (In re Hamilton (1999) 20 Cal.4th 273, 294.)
Jury misconduct can form the basis of a motion for a new trial. (Code of Civ.Proc., § 657(2).) Juror misconduct involves juror prejudice or bias. (Evid. Code, § 1150.) A motion for a new trial may be granted if juror misconduct “materially affected the substantial rights of a party.” (Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 57.)
“A motion for new trial is a creature of statute.” (Neal v. Montgomery Elevator Co. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1194, 1198.) A motion for new trial may be granted if there is any “[m]isconduct of the jury; and whenever any one or more of the jurors have been induced to assent to any general or special verdict, or to a finding on any question submitted to them by the court, by a resort to the determination of chance, such misconduct may be proved by the affidavit of any one of the jurors.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 657.)
“The moving party bears the burden of establishing juror misconduct. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 657(2); People v. Duran (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 103, 113, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 635; Barboni v. Tuomi (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 340, 349.) Unless the prevailing party rebuts the presumption by showing the misconduct was harmless, a new trial should be granted. (Enyart v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 499, 507)
In ruling on a request for a new trial based on jury misconduct, the trial court must undertake a three-step inquiry. (Whitlock v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 149, 160; Barboni v. Tuomi (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 340, 345.) First, the trial court must determine whether the affidavits supporting the motion are admissible. (Id.) Second, if the evidence is admissible, the trial court must determine whether the facts establish misconduct. (Id.) Third, assuming misconduct, the trial court must determine whether the misconduct was prejudicial. (Id.) “A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on each of these issues, and its rulings will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (Id.)
“Upon an inquiry as to the validity of a verdict, any otherwise admissible evidence may be received as to statements made, or conduct, conditions, or events occurring, either within or without the jury room, of such a character as is likely to have influenced the verdict improperly. No evidence is admissible to show the effect of such statement, conduct, condition, or event upon a juror either in influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or concerning the mental processes by which it was determined.” (Evid. Code, § 1150(a).)
This statute distinguishes between “proof of overt acts, objectively ascertainable, and proof of the subjective reasoning processes of the individual juror, which can be neither corroborated nor disproved.” (Enyart v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 499, 506.) While “jurors may testify to ‘overt acts’--that is, such statements, conduct, conditions, or events as are ‘open to sight, hearing, and the other senses and thus subject to corroboration’--[they] may not testify to ‘the subjective reasoning processes of the individual juror.’” (In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 398.) Likewise, evidence about a jury's “subjective collective mental process purporting to show how the verdict was reached” is inadmissible to impeach a jury verdict. (Ford v. Bennacka (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 330, 336.) In other words, “evidence that the internal thought processes of one or more jurors were biased is not admissible to impeach a verdict.” (Donovan v. Poway Unified School Dist. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 567, 625.)
“The concealment during voir dire of a bias, belief or state of mind which prevents a juror from following the court's instructions and acting in an impartial manner constitutes misconduct.” (Tapia v. Barker (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 761, 765.) In determining whether misconduct exists, the trial court must assess the credibility of the declarants and is entitled to believe one over the other. (Toste v. CalPortland Construction (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 362, 372.)
“Presentation to or reception by a jury of new evidence from sources outside the trial evidence constitutes misconduct.” (Whitlock v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 149, 161.)
If no affidavits or declarations are introduced to counter the evidence of jury misconduct, the acts are deemed established and the only issue is whether they are harmful or prejudicial. (Tapia v. Barker (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 761, 766.)
Misconduct was prejudicial if there is a substantial likelihood that the juror was biased and that the misconduct affected the verdict. (Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 58.) Juror misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice, and unless the prevailing party rebuts the presumption by showing the misconduct was harmless, a new trial should be granted. (Enyart v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 499, 507.)
“The presumption of prejudice is an evidentiary aid to those parties who are able to establish serious misconduct of a type likely to have had an effect on the verdict or which deprived the complaining party of thorough consideration of his case, yet who are unable to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that actual prejudice occurred. The law thus recognizes the substantial barrier to proof of prejudice which section 1150 erects, and it seeks to lower that barrier somewhat.” (Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 416; see also Evid. Code § 1150.)
This presumption may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist based upon a consideration of such factors as the strength of the evidence that misconduct occurred, the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, and the probability that actual prejudice may have ensued. (Whitlock v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 149, 162.) “[S]ince the trial judge had all the evidence before him on the merits of the case, and as well the affidavits, he was in the best position to evaluate the prejudicial effect of the alleged misconduct.” (Id.)
“There is an abundance of reported decisions concerning jury experiments. The classic rule was stated by our Supreme Court early in this century: ‘They [the jurors] may carry out experiments within the lines of offered evidence, but if their experiments shall invade new fields and they shall be influenced in their verdict by discoveries from such experiments which will not fall fairly within the scope and purview of the evidence, then manifestly, the jury has been itself taking evidence without the knowledge of either party, evidence which it is not possible for the party injured to meet, answer, or explain.’” (Bell v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 919, 931.)
Thus, experiments carried out privately by jurors qualify as juror misconduct. (Id. at 931.) “Jurors cannot be permitted to investigate the case outside the courtroom. They must describe the guilt or innocence of the defendant upon the evidence introduced at the trial. It is impossible for this court to say that the outside investigation did not affect the result as to the character for the verdict rendered. For when misconduct of jurors is shown, it is presumed to be injurious to defendant, unless the contrary appears.” (Id.) “What jurors can do, as a body during deliberations, is engage in experiments which amount to no more than a careful evaluation of the evidence which was presented at trial.” (Id. at 932.)
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.
Feb 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Feb 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 29, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 27, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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
Jan 27, 2021
Marin County, CA
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.)
Jan 27, 2021
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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.
Jan 27, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
Jan 27, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
“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.
Jan 27, 2021
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
. § 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.
Jan 27, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jan 26, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 25, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.)
Jan 25, 2021
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 25, 2021
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
“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.)
Jan 25, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Jan 22, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Jan 22, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
Jan 22, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Jan 22, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
“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
Jan 22, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.)
Jan 22, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Jan 22, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
charged with the same allegations of misconduct, and were both disciplined.
Jan 22, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Jan 22, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.)
Jan 22, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.