What is Juror Misconduct?

Useful Rulings on Juror Misconduct

Recent Rulings on Juror Misconduct

HADAR VS. LURIA

“‘The misconduct which brings the clean hands doctrine into operation must relate directly to the transaction concerning which the complaint is made, i.e., it must pertain to the very subject matter involved and affect the equitable relations between the [43] litigants.’” (Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 407, 432.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

NICOLE CAMPOS VS LAUSD

Plaintiff further argues that none of her causes of action seek damages or other relief based on what was reported to the EEOC or the investigations prompted by her coworkers and supervisors’ accusations, and she instead asserts that the alleged misconduct is only part of the evidentiary basis to demonstrate LAUSD’s motive, intent, and conspiratorial misconduct in driving Plaintiff out of the teaching profession. Id. Plaintiff cites Park v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

2 COOPER SQUARE, LLC VS JOSHUA SINGER

., the court vacated default judgment for misconduct or fraud, when the prevailing party misrepresented that the party had been required to forfeit 70,000 shares of stock, instead of the actually-owned 11,334 shares and furthermore failed to inform the court that two severed causes of action were successfully defended against by other defendants, when liability was joint, such that the defense would inure to the counterpart’s benefit. (See (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 595, 604.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

MICHELE BARNETT VS 22301 S WESTERN AVENUE LLC

“A written release may exculpate a tortfeasor from future negligence or misconduct.” (Benedek v. PLC Santa Monica (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1356 [discussing this law in the context of negligence][citation omitted]; see also, Mora, supra,. 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 781 [implying a written release may exculpate a commercial landlord of being liable for premises liability to a third party despite the cause of action being labelled as negligence].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

HECTOR ALBERT DIAZ VS LLP PRODUCTION SERVICES INC

Gordon’s misconduct in depriving Plaintiffs of their breaks thus had to have occurred prior to May 2, 2017 and April 25, 2017. Based on these dates, Diaz and Castillo had to assert their IIED and NIED claims against Gordon prior to May 2, 2019, and April 25, 2019, respectively. As Plaintiffs did not assert these claims against Gordon until May 12, 2020, these claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LETICIA ESPINOLA VS DAVID SEPULVEDA, ET AL.

Instead, the Court is required to assess whether a plaintiff’s allegations against a particular defendant, including his intoxicated driving, his other misconduct leading to the accident, and his prior bad acts and history, are sufficient taken together to show that defendant acted with a willful and conscious disregard for the probable dangerous consequences of his actions and that, under the circumstances, his conduct should be considered so vile, base, contemptible, or loathsome as to be deemed despicable

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND VS. RICARDO LARA IN HIS CAPACITY AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

However, the party seeking discovery in support of its claim of agency misconduct must make a sufficient showing of "agency misconduct" to warrant discovery. Mere allegations of agency impropriety are not enough to warrant discovery in mandate proceedings. There must be a foundational showing. In Board of Dental Examiners v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND VS. RICARDO LARA IN HIS CAPACITY AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

However, the party seeking discovery in support of its claim of agency misconduct must make a sufficient showing of “agency misconduct” to warrant discovery. Mere allegations of agency impropriety are not enough to warrant discovery in mandate proceedings. There must be a foundational showing. In Board of Dental Examiners v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

MCMAHON VS. HENDRICKS

Kearney (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 309, 312, the statements were made by parents to a school principal charging teacher misconduct. (“We do not intend to suggest that privilege attaches to every libel of a public school teacher or administrator. [Citations.] But in this case parents of school children were seeking redress against their children's teacher through appropriate school channels.”)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

CLAUDIA RUBIO VS AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DRAMATIC ARTS, ET AL.

For example, evidence of past misconduct with prior employers may show motive, knowledge, and absence of mistake or fact with respect to Plaintiff’s alleged misconduct at AADA. (Evid. Code § 1101(b); see also Frazier v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (N.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2011, No. 11-MC-80270 RS NC) 2011 WL 5854601, at *1 (same conclusion).) Moreover, in Pugh v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOSE CARDOS SOBERANIS, ET AL. VS DOES 1 THROUGH 200, INCLUSIVE

Because of this misconduct, Jose was exposed to these toxic chemicals and sustained serious injuries including CLL. (Compl. ¶ 8.) As noted ante, Plaintiffs have plead a viable fraud claim. As such, punitive damages are recoverable on that cause of action. Plaintiffs’ second and third causes of action grounded in products liability hinge on sufficient allegations of “malice.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

LORETA S TUPARAN VS GOLDEN CROSS HEALTH CARE ET AL

The Second Cause of Action for Willful Misconduct lacks merit. 3. The Third Cause of Action for Negligence lacks merit. 4. The Fourth Cause of Action for Malpractice lacks merit. 5. The Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty lacks merit. 6. The Sixth Cause of Action for Wrongful Death lacks merit. " If moving party is able to point out the complaint with causes thus set forth, the court will consider continuing the matter.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

MARIYAM KARAPETYAN, ET AL. VS AZMI W ATIYA, ET AL.

This thirty-five year career in surgery of the heart is more than sufficient to have a specialized set of opinions on the appropriateness and adequacy of surgery on the heart that would aid a juror. The Court finds the opinions of Plaintiffs Osanna Kosoyan and Anna Mkrtchyan are immaterial. Plaintiffs attempt to show there is a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the bypass surgery should have been performed, the risks were appropriately consented to, and a blood thinner was prescribed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KINECTA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS MARLO RICHARDSON, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on July 16, 2019, alleging six causes of action for (1) quiet title against all defendants, (2) declaratory relief against all defendants, (3) cancellation of instruments against all defendants, (4) fraud against Richardson and Dowell, (5) negligence and misconduct of notary against Dowell, and (6) suit on notary bond against Merchants. Plaintiff dismissed from this action Portfolio on February 24, 2020, Dowell and Merchants on May 11, 2020, and DFK on May 13, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

DEBRA MARKS ET AL VS LAURIE GOUETT ET AL

Here, both parties seek monetary sanctions with Trade Center requesting $1,860 asserting that Plaintiff forced it to file the current motion to compel and Plaintiff seeking $2,250 in sanctions alleging that Trade Center filed its motion in violation of an agreement to extend Plaintiff’s response time, failed to schedule an informal discovery conference, and through related alleged misconduct.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ALFRED L. CARR VS LESLIE ANNE CALDWELL

(c) 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

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LAKELAND WEST CAPITAL VIII, LLC VS WILLIAM F. LASKY

(Globe, supra, 457 U.S. 596, 607, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 [protection of minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment]; accord, Press–Enterprise II, supra, 478 U.S. 1, 9, fn. 2, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1; Press–Enterprise I, supra, 464 U.S. 501, 512, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 [privacy interests of a prospective juror during individual voir dire]; Rovinsky, supra, 722 F.2d 197, 200 [protection of witnesses from embarrassment or intimidation so extreme that it would traumatize

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

ENTERTAINMENT REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MAGNOLIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

. § 657(1)-(7), which generally permit the trial court to vacate its verdict and order a new trial when matters raised on motion show that irregularities, misconduct, accident or surprise, newly discovered evidence, excessive or inadequate damages, or error in evidence and law have caused the aggrieved party to have their substantial rights materially affected.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

LEADSMARKET.COM LLC VS JOSEPH FALLS

There are no facts to show how the sharing of practices and protocols between two companies with the same principals is misconduct, let alone interference. Further, there is no allegation showing that Falls was contractually entitled to minimum commission. The alleged reduction in commissions is seen to be grounded in competition between companies that are related (since they share the same principals), rather than in competition which each other.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CYNTHIA CONE VS STARBUCKS CORPORATION

Evidence or issue sanctions may be imposed only after parties violated discovery orders compelling further responses, except in exceptional circumstances, including where there was sufficiently egregious misconduct regarding a failure to respond to discovery, or a prior discovery order would be futile. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1428.) To avoid sanctions, the burden of proving that a discovery violation was not willful is on the party on whom the discovery was served.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

BRIZUELA VS KELLY SERVICES USA LLC

In other words, equitable estoppel doctrine applies 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.” (Id. at 218-219.) In this case, Plaintiffs do not dispute that their employment claims against Albertsons is inextricably intertwined with their claims against Kelly.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

ZHOIE PEREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS EDDUIN ZELAYA GRUNFELD, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

“[A] person in plaintiff’s position retains significant legal remedies against an employer of a security guard who engages in misconduct . . . [t]he employer remains potentially liable to a victim . . . for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of a security guard.” (Maria D. v. Westec Residential Sec., Inc. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 125, 149.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WARDWELL VS VERTICAL INFILL INC

The MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL KIMBERLY SWIERENGA FOR MISCONDUCT by defendants Brian Burns, Venus Burns and Burns Law Firm is DENIED. Objections overruled. Defendants have not shown standing to disqualify plaintiff's counsel. Even if there was standing, they have not shown that Ms. Swierenga should be disqualified. No California case has held that only a client or former client may bring a disqualification motion. (Kennedy v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KAMRAN NAIMI, ET AL., VS KAYVAN NAIMI, ET AL.,

Defendants’ failure to inform plaintiffs that the initial version of the operating agreement listed Kayvan and Farinaz is not evidence of misconduct. Stock Certificates Plaintiffs argue defendants forged stock certificates reflecting Soheyla and Pouran’s ownership in Santa Monica Group, Inc., the entity that controlled the partnerships’ car dealership interests.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CLASSIC AUTO REPAIR, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS TRUSTEE OF THE ZION IDA FAMILY TRUST, DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2003 ZION IDA

Misconduct 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 are sort to the determination of chance, such misconduct may be proved by the affidavit of any one of the jurors. 3. Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. 4.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 251     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.