Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 02/02/2011 TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT: 43
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Judy H. Hersher
CLERK: A. Brown
REPORTER/ERM: E Varela CSR# 4977
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: A. Hughey
CASE NO: 07AS04450 CASE INIT.DATE: 09/24/2007
CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT TYPE: Civil Jury Trial - Civil Trial
APPEARANCES
STEPHANIE FINELLI was present for the plaintiffs; TODD JONES and GREGORY FEDERICO were
present for the defendants
PROCEEDINGS: JURY TRIAL DAY TWELVE
The above-entitled cause came on this date with all members of the jury being present and assembled
in front of the deliberation room. The jurors then entered the jury deliberation room and resumed their
deliberations.
At 10:30 a.m., the following communication was received from the jury:
"We, the jury in the above-entitled action, request the following:
We would like a definition of the term "harm" sited in question 18.
Dated: 2-2-11 /S/ juror No. 3
Time: 10:30 Foreperson
Subsequent to counsel indicating that they would prefer no response, the Court distributed its own
proposed language which was accepted by the parties; at approximately 2:10 p.m., the following
response was sent to the jury, after the title of court and cause:
:
TO THE JURY IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE:
In response to Question of 10:30:
You have asked for a definition of the term "harm" in question 18. There is no special or separate legal
definition of the term. During the trial, you heard testimony by the witnesses regarding the alleged "harm"
by each thereof. You are to use the word in its usual and customary meaning and apply it to the evidence
presented, in order to determine if, based on the facts you have found, there is "harm."
Dated: February 2, 2011
At approximately 2:40 p.m., a communication was received from the jury indicating they had reached a
verdict.
DATE: 02/02/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 43 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul CASE NO: 07AS04450
Britschgi, et al
At approximately 3:28 p.m., with counsel and plaintiff Florentine Abbott present, the jurors and alternate
juror were called into the courtroom and were seated in their proper places. Defendant Mr. Ruybalid
and defendant in pro per Mr. Smith were not present.
The Court confirmed with the foreperson, Juror No. 3, that indeed a verdict had been reached in this
matter. After examining the form of verdict the Court directed the clerk to read the verdict in open court
as follows:
After title of court and cause, special verdict:
We, the jury in the above-indicated matter, answer the questions asked of us as follows:
BREACH OF CONTRACT
CA Construction
- Did the Abbotts and CA Construction enter into a contract?
__X__ Yes _____No
If your answer to Question 1 is "Yes", then answer Question 2. If you answered "No", answer Question
7.
2. Did Plaintiffs ABBOTT do all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the contract
required them to do?
____ Yes _X__No
If your answer to Question 2 is "Yes", then skip Question 3 and answer Question 4. If you answered
"No", answer Question 3.
3. Were the Plaintiffs ABBOTT excused from having to do all, or substantially all, of the significant
things that the contract required them to do?
___ Yes _X_ No
If your answer to Question 3 is "Yes", then answer Question 4. If you answered "No", then skip
Questions 4, 5, and 6, and answer Question 7.
4. Did Defendant CA CONSTRUCTION fail to do something that the contract required them to do?
____ Yes ____No
If your answer to Question 4 is "Yes", then answer Question 5. If you answered "No", then skip
questions 5 and 6, and answer Question 7.
5. Was Defendant CA CONSTRUCTION excused from having to do all, or Substantially all, of the
significant things that the contract required him to do?
___ Yes ___ No
If your answer to Question 5 is "Yes", then skip Question 6, and answer Question 7. If you answered
"No", then answer Question 6.
DATE: 02/02/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: 43 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul CASE NO: 07AS04450
Britschgi, et al
6. Were the Plaintiffs ABBOTT harmed by the failure of CA CONSTRUCTION to perform under the
contract?
___ Yes ___No
Please proceed to question No. 7.
NEGLIGENCE
CA CONSTRUCTION AND MARK SMITH
7. a. Was CA Construction negligent in performing its work at the Abbott home?
Yes __X__ No _____
b. Was Mark Smith dba Groundbreakers negligent in performing its
work at the Abbott home?
Yes _____ No __X__
If you answered "yes" in any part of Question 7, then answer question 8. If you answered "no" to all
parts of question 7, stop here, and proceed to question No. 15.
8. For each party that received a "yes" answer in question 7, answer the following:
Was CA Construction's negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to the Abbott home?
Yes _____ No _X___
Was Mark Smith dba Groundbreakers' negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to the
Abbott home?
Yes _____ No _____
If you answered "yes" in any part of question 8, then answer question 9. If you answered "no" to
all parts of question 8, proceed to question 15.
9. What are the Plaintiffs Abbott's total damages? Do not reduce the damages based on the fault, if
any, of the Plaintiffs Abbott or others.
TOTAL $
If the Plaintiffs Abbott have proved any damages, then answer question 10. If the Plaintiffs Abbott have
not proved any damages, then stop here, and proceed to question No. 15.
PLAINTIFFS' CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
10. Were the ABBOTTS negligent?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to question 10 is " yes," then answer question 11. If you answered "no," then answer
question 12.
DATE: 02/02/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 3
DEPT: 43 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul CASE NO: 07AS04450
Britschgi, et al
11. Were the Abbott's negligence a substantial factor in causing their harm?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to question 11 is " yes," then answer question 12. If you answered "no", then insert the
number zero next to Plaintiffs Abbott's name in question 14 and answer question 12.
THE NEGLIGENCE OF OTHERS
12. Was RONALD BRITSCHGI negligent?
Yes _____ No _____
Was CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC. negligent?
Yes _____ No _____
If you answered yes to any part of 12, then answer question 13. If you answered no to all parts of
question 12, answer question 14.
13. For each person who received a "yes" answer in question 12, answer the
following:
Was RONALD BRITSCHGI's negligence a substantial factor in causing the harm to Plaintiffs ABBOTT?
Yes _____ No _____
Was CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC.'s negligence a substantial factor in causing the harm to Plaintiffs
ABBOTT?
Yes _____ No _____
If you answered yes to any part of 13, then answer question 14. If you answered no regarding all
persons in question 13, then insert the number zero next to their names in question 14 and answer
question 15.
14. What percentage of responsibility for Plaintiffs Abbott's harm do you assign to the following?
Insert a percentage for only those who received "yes" answers in questions 8, 11, or 13:
CA CONSTRUCTION: %
MARK SMITH: ____________%
PLAINTIFFS ABBOTT: ____________%
RONALD BRITSCHGI: %
CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC: %
DATE: 02/02/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 4
DEPT: 43 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul CASE NO: 07AS04450
Britschgi, et al
TOTAL 100 %
VIOLATION OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODES
CA CONSTRUCTION
Please answer questions: 15, 16, and 17.
15. Did Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID dba CA CONSTRUCTION willfully depart from
accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction?
YES __X___ NO_______
.
16. Did Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID dba CA CONSTRUCTION perform work as a
concrete contractor without a valid C-8 license?
YES ______ NO_X____
17. Did Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID dba CA CONSTRUCTION knowingly make false or
fraudulent representations to Plaintiffs about his ability to properly perform the services he was required
to perform under the contract with the Plaintiffs?
YES ______ NO__X___
If you answered Question 15, 16 or 17 "Yes", then answer Question 18 and sign the form. If you
answered "No", then sign the form.
18. Were the Plaintiffs harmed by this violation?
YES ______ NO__X__
Dated: 2-2-11 Signed: Juror #3
Foreperson
After you have completed this form, please inform the Court Attendant.
The jury was partially polled as to questions 2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, and 18, at the request of the plaintiff,
and the jurors affirmed their verdicts as more fully stated on the record.
The Court ordered the verdict recorded and to stand as returned. Counsel waived re-reading of the
verdict as recorded.
The Court thanked the jurors for their service in this matter, released them from the admonition not to
DATE: 02/02/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 5
DEPT: 43 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul CASE NO: 07AS04450
Britschgi, et al
discuss the case outside the jury deliberation room and excused them from further jury service at this
time.
Counsel stipulated to the return of exhibits.
Court was adjourned.
DATE: 02/02/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 6
DEPT: 43 Calendar No.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 02/02/2011 TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT: 43 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Judy H. Hersher CLERK: A. Brown REPORTER/ERM: E Varela CSR# 4977 BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: A. Hughey CASE NO: 07AS04450 CASE INIT.DATE: 09/24/2007 CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited EVENT TYPE: Civil Jury Trial - Civil Trial APPEARANCES STEPHANIE FINELLI was present for the plaintiffs; TODD JONES and GREGORY FEDERICO were present for the defendants PROCEEDINGS: JURY TRIAL DAY TWELVE The above-entitled cause came on this date with all members of the jury being present and assembled in front of the deliberation room. The jurors then entered the jury deliberation room and resumed their deliberations. At 10:30 a.m., the following communication was received from the jury: "We, the jury in the above-entitled action, request the following: We would like a definition of the term "harm" sited in question 18. Dated: 2-2-11 /S/ juror No. 3 Time: 10:30 Foreperson Subsequent to counsel indicating that they would prefer no response, the Court distributed its own proposed language which was accepted by the parties; at approximately 2:10 p.m., the following response was sent to the jury, after the title of court and cause: : TO THE JURY IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE: In response to Question of 10:30: You have asked for a definition of the term "harm" in question 18. There is no special or separate legal definition of the term. During the trial, you heard testimony by the witnesses regarding the alleged "harm" by each thereof. You are to use the word in its usual and customary meaning and apply it to the evidence presented, in order to determine if, based on the facts you have found, there is "harm." Dated: February 2, 2011 At approximately 2:40 p.m., a communication was received from the jury indicating they had reached a verdict. DATE: 02/02/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 43 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul CASE NO: 07AS04450 Britschgi, et al At approximately 3:28 p.m., with counsel and plaintiff Florentine Abbott present, the jurors and alternate juror were called into the courtroom and were seated in their proper places. Defendant Mr. Ruybalid and defendant in pro per Mr. Smith were not present. The Court confirmed with the foreperson, Juror No. 3, that indeed a verdict had been reached in this matter. After examining the form of verdict the Court directed the clerk to read the verdict in open court as follows: After title of court and cause, special verdict: We, the jury in the above-indicated matter, answer the questions asked of us as follows: BREACH OF CONTRACT CA Construction - Did the Abbotts and CA Construction enter into a contract? __X__ Yes _____No If your answer to Question 1 is "Yes", then answer Question 2. If you answered "No", answer Question 7. 2. Did Plaintiffs ABBOTT do all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the contract required them to do? ____ Yes _X__No If your answer to Question 2 is "Yes", then skip Question 3 and answer Question 4. If you answered "No", answer Question 3. 3. Were the Plaintiffs ABBOTT excused from having to do all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the contract required them to do? ___ Yes _X_ No If your answer to Question 3 is "Yes", then answer Question 4. If you answered "No", then skip Questions 4, 5, and 6, and answer Question 7. 4. Did Defendant CA CONSTRUCTION fail to do something that the contract required them to do? ____ Yes ____No If your answer to Question 4 is "Yes", then answer Question 5. If you answered "No", then skip questions 5 and 6, and answer Question 7. 5. Was Defendant CA CONSTRUCTION excused from having to do all, or Substantially all, of the significant things that the contract required him to do? ___ Yes ___ No If your answer to Question 5 is "Yes", then skip Question 6, and answer Question 7. If you answered "No", then answer Question 6. DATE: 02/02/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 43 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul CASE NO: 07AS04450 Britschgi, et al 6. Were the Plaintiffs ABBOTT harmed by the failure of CA CONSTRUCTION to perform under the contract? ___ Yes ___No Please proceed to question No. 7. NEGLIGENCE CA CONSTRUCTION AND MARK SMITH 7. a. Was CA Construction negligent in performing its work at the Abbott home? Yes __X__ No _____ b. Was Mark Smith dba Groundbreakers negligent in performing its work at the Abbott home? Yes _____ No __X__ If you answered "yes" in any part of Question 7, then answer question 8. If you answered "no" to all parts of question 7, stop here, and proceed to question No. 15. 8. For each party that received a "yes" answer in question 7, answer the following: Was CA Construction's negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to the Abbott home? Yes _____ No _X___ Was Mark Smith dba Groundbreakers' negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to the Abbott home? Yes _____ No _____ If you answered "yes" in any part of question 8, then answer question 9. If you answered "no" to all parts of question 8, proceed to question 15. 9. What are the Plaintiffs Abbott's total damages? Do not reduce the damages based on the fault, if any, of the Plaintiffs Abbott or others. TOTAL $ If the Plaintiffs Abbott have proved any damages, then answer question 10. If the Plaintiffs Abbott have not proved any damages, then stop here, and proceed to question No. 15. PLAINTIFFS' CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE 10. Were the ABBOTTS negligent? Yes _____ No _____ If your answer to question 10 is " yes," then answer question 11. If you answered "no," then answer question 12. DATE: 02/02/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 3 DEPT: 43 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul CASE NO: 07AS04450 Britschgi, et al 11. Were the Abbott's negligence a substantial factor in causing their harm? Yes _____ No _____ If your answer to question 11 is " yes," then answer question 12. If you answered "no", then insert the number zero next to Plaintiffs Abbott's name in question 14 and answer question 12. THE NEGLIGENCE OF OTHERS 12. Was RONALD BRITSCHGI negligent? Yes _____ No _____ Was CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC. negligent? Yes _____ No _____ If you answered yes to any part of 12, then answer question 13. If you answered no to all parts of question 12, answer question 14. 13. For each person who received a "yes" answer in question 12, answer the following: Was RONALD BRITSCHGI's negligence a substantial factor in causing the harm to Plaintiffs ABBOTT? Yes _____ No _____ Was CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC.'s negligence a substantial factor in causing the harm to Plaintiffs ABBOTT? Yes _____ No _____ If you answered yes to any part of 13, then answer question 14. If you answered no regarding all persons in question 13, then insert the number zero next to their names in question 14 and answer question 15. 14. What percentage of responsibility for Plaintiffs Abbott's harm do you assign to the following? Insert a percentage for only those who received "yes" answers in questions 8, 11, or 13: CA CONSTRUCTION: % MARK SMITH: ____________% PLAINTIFFS ABBOTT: ____________% RONALD BRITSCHGI: % CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC: % DATE: 02/02/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 4 DEPT: 43 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul CASE NO: 07AS04450 Britschgi, et al TOTAL 100 % VIOLATION OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODES CA CONSTRUCTION Please answer questions: 15, 16, and 17. 15. Did Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID dba CA CONSTRUCTION willfully depart from accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction? YES __X___ NO_______ . 16. Did Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID dba CA CONSTRUCTION perform work as a concrete contractor without a valid C-8 license? YES ______ NO_X____ 17. Did Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID dba CA CONSTRUCTION knowingly make false or fraudulent representations to Plaintiffs about his ability to properly perform the services he was required to perform under the contract with the Plaintiffs? YES ______ NO__X___ If you answered Question 15, 16 or 17 "Yes", then answer Question 18 and sign the form. If you answered "No", then sign the form. 18. Were the Plaintiffs harmed by this violation? YES ______ NO__X__ Dated: 2-2-11 Signed: Juror #3 Foreperson After you have completed this form, please inform the Court Attendant. The jury was partially polled as to questions 2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, and 18, at the request of the plaintiff, and the jurors affirmed their verdicts as more fully stated on the record. The Court ordered the verdict recorded and to stand as returned. Counsel waived re-reading of the verdict as recorded. The Court thanked the jurors for their service in this matter, released them from the admonition not to DATE: 02/02/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 5 DEPT: 43 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul CASE NO: 07AS04450 Britschgi, et al discuss the case outside the jury deliberation room and excused them from further jury service at this time. Counsel stipulated to the return of exhibits. Court was adjourned. DATE: 02/02/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 6 DEPT: 43 Calendar No.