What is Juror Misconduct?

Useful Rulings on Juror Misconduct

Recent Rulings on Juror Misconduct

JANE R D DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Under the “knew or had reason to know standard,” the plaintiff is required to prove either actual knowledge of misconduct or heightened foreseeability, also called a “specific warning.” (See Chaney v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 152, 157 [no duty to prevent an assault absent “actual knowledge” of the perpetrator’s deviant sexual propensities]; Margaret W. v. Kelly R. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 141, 155 [sexual assault must be foreseeable, not just conceivable]; Juarez v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

JOSEPH POPP VS VALLEYWIDE ESCROW, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Punitive Damages Defendant argues that the references for punitive damages should be stricken because (1) the allegations only establish alleged unintentional misconduct, not fraud; and (2) there are no allegations in the Complaint that a corporate officer of Valleywide ratified the fraud of an escrow officer from Valleywide. (Motion to Strike, p. ii:2-12.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CHAN VS. TRANQUILITY, INC.

The Court notes that the allegation concerning the withholding of food and meals is one of 12 categories of alleged misconduct that are impermissibly pleaded as boilerplate legal conclusions in the introductory allegations, with no supporting allegations of ultimate fact set forth elsewhere in the complaint. (SAC, ¶ 12.) G. Leave to Amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CHUNG & ASSOCIATES LLC ET AL VS XAVIER RUFFIN ET AL

Additionally, the issue of whether Defendants’ misconduct caused Plaintiff to lose business (as opposed to Defendants obtaining the business with information that is either not trade secrets or through other means) is an issue relating to causation, which is also admitted as true based on the Defendants’ stricken answer. In other words, Defendants have admitted, by the striking of their answer, that Plaintiff’s damages were proximately caused by Defendants’ conduct.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

ANDREW MCGINNIS, ET AL. VS SAN MARINO GARDENS WELLNESS CENTER, LP

Plaintiff in the motion argues that the response is evasive and inappropriate, as the request does not seek financial condition information of the type contemplated under Civil Code section 3295, such as information about profits or losses, but seeks information concerning what was budgeted in a narrow time period, and that this information is relevant to the issues in the case since plaintiff specifically alleges that financial malfeasance and understaffing was at the root of misconduct by defendant, and the

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PETER FISCHL VS GREGORY R. ACOSTA, INC.

Plaintiff alleged that the Advisor Defendants’ alleged misconduct could be vicariously imputed to Pacific Life on an agency theory (Id., ¶¶46, 52, 55; see also ¶6 [“Pacific Life was ACOSTA’s employer, principal, and/or control person”]) and that Pacific Life “aided and abetted” Acosta’s breach of fiduciary duty (Id., ¶65.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PARSIG CHOULJIAN VS TOTAL RENAL CARE INC.

Punitive Damages Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages fails because he lacks clear and convincing evidence that an officer, director, or managing agent of TRC engaged in or ratified malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent misconduct toward him.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAVID LOPEZ VS BOB FRENCH CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL

Plaintiffs prior wages, salary, overtime, commissions, bonuses, vacation pay, and benefits which are relevant to a determination of Plaintiffs current and future earning potential as well as the kind of employment Plaintiff may obtain in an effort to mitigate his damages; (c) Information that reveals that Plaintiff claimed the same injuries during previous employment that he is now asserting in this action; (d) Information of Plaintiffs previous performance evaluations, which may reveal a pattern of Plaintiffs misconduct

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LAZCONO VS. RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY

The alleged misconduct of the defendant, while potentially wrongful, is not so “despicable” as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. It is, at its core, a breach of contract claim. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

HSIEH, ET AL. V. WU, ET AL.

They further assert that the claim fails as to Chiu because a general partner’s duty of care to the limited partnership and other partners is “limited to refraining from engaging in grossly negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation of the law” (Corp. Code, § 15904.08, subd. (c)), and there are no allegations that they engaged in such conduct.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

GARDEN CITY, INC. V. ERIC SWALLOW, ET AL.

Here, the Court is not presented with conclusory allegations of misconduct or with allegations similar to those held to be insufficient to overcome the business judgment rule in Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC, supra.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

WEISSENBERG VS. CARQUINEZ WOMEN’S CLUB

The Wedding Agreement also includes an indemnity clause that states, inter alia, “[t]he Customer hereby voluntarily assumes any and all risks including injury to any person or property, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Company…except to the extent such Claims arise out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Company.” (UMF No. 13, emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

FARBOD MELAMED VS PARALLAX HEALTH SCIENCES INC ET AL

It is unclear how Plaintiff’s probation compliance is relevant to discovering Plaintiff’s role in the underlying pharmacy misconduct and subsequent investigation. Similarly, Categories 5, 8, 9, and 19 concern Plaintiff’s drug use. As noted by Plaintiff, this Court has already stated its belief that Plaintiff’s prior drug use is not relevant to Defendant Melamed’s defense that Plaintiff’s hands were unclean with regard to the Board of Pharmacy’s investigation.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DOE VS DH DEL MAR MANAGEMENT LLC

Typically, a corporation may be liable for employee misconduct under a respondeat superior theory. As an alternate theory to respondeat superior, an employer may be liable for an employee's act where the employer either authorized the tortious act or subsequently ratified an originally unauthorized tort. The failure to discharge an employee who has committed misconduct may be evidence of ratification.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BRENT SILVER VS KIARASH Z. TEHRANI, ET AL.,

For attorney misconduct to support equitable relief from a default judgment due to extrinsic mistake, there must have been “neglect of an extreme degree amounting to positive misconduct by counsel, rather than mere inexcusable neglect, sufficient to obliterate the attorney-client relationship and thereby preclude any imputation of counsel's neglect to the client. Positive misconduct is found where there is a total failure on the part of counsel to represent his client.” People v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SUSANNAH O'BRIEN ET AL VS JOHN RICHARD ROGERS ET AL

O’Brien alleges the following misconduct on the part of Defendants. Defendants wrongfully altered the poster and log line for her film, despite her contractual veto right for changes to either. (FAC ¶ 28.) House falsely represented to O’Brien that its goal was to obtain 80 to 100 theaters for distribution of the film, when in fact no theaters were booked for the premiere, and ultimately only ten theaters hosted the release. (FAC ¶¶ 29, 32–33.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DOE VS DH DEL MAR MANAGEMENT LLC

Typically, a corporation may be liable for employee misconduct under a respondeat superior theory. As an alternate theory to respondeat superior, an employer may be liable for an employee's act where the employer either authorized the tortious act or subsequently ratified an originally unauthorized tort. The failure to discharge an employee who has committed misconduct may be evidence of ratification.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AH VS FISCHER

However, plaintiff alleges at least three instances in which women reported misconduct by Fischer to the Sheriff's Department, and that those reports were not investigated or inadequately investigated. It is reasonable to infer from plaintiff's allegations that the County's policies and customs thus were the moving force behind the assaults and that they did not properly supervise their deputies, and that such policies existed before Fischer allegedly assaulted the plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

M Y VS FISCHER

However, plaintiff alleges at least three instances in which women reported misconduct by Fischer to the Sheriff's Department, and that those reports were not investigated or inadequately investigated. It is reasonable to infer from plaintiff's allegations that the County's policies and customs thus were the moving force behind the assaults and that they did not properly supervise their deputies, and that such policies existed before Fischer allegedly assaulted the plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

C VS FISCHER

However, plaintiff alleges at least three instances in which women reported misconduct by Fischer to the Sheriff's Department, and that those reports were not investigated or inadequately investigated. It is reasonable to infer from plaintiff's allegations that the County's policies and customs thus were the moving force behind the assaults and that they did not properly supervise their deputies, and that such policies existed before Fischer allegedly assaulted the plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CITY OF SANTA MONICA VS CECIL MCNABB, ET AL.,

The City has sufficiently alleged a claim which entitles the City to injunctive relief, as it alleges unless Defendants are enjoined from the alleged misconduct, current and future tenants will suffer injury and loss of their rights. (SAC ¶ 33.) Indeed, the Court has so issued such injunctive relief. Thus, Defendants’ demurrer to the fourth cause of action is OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

SAM DELEO, ET AL. VS GOLD GATE CAPITAL, ET AL.

As a result of the foregoing, allowing WINN, and SEEBERT to escape personal liability for GGC'S misconduct would sanction a fraud or promote an injustice. (Complaint, ¶ 9.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IAN HANNAH VS COMFORT HOME FOR THE ELDERLY, ET AL.

Defendants RNS Management Corp. and Socorro Trinidad demur to the causes of action for willful misconduct and unfair business practices. Plaintiff moves for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants’ Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Willful Misconduct Willful misconduct is not a separate tort but an aggravated form of negligence. Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.3d 341, 360.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADRIAN QUINTERO VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

In Santa Clara County, PERB noted that in its prior decisions it had found there is “no more fundamental right afforded employees under the statutory scheme than the right to communicate with others about working conditions… ‘Working conditions’ include the circumstances underlying and surrounding an investigation into alleged employee misconduct.” (Id. at 8.)(citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

ADRIAN QUINTERO VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

If you have not been previously advised, the Department is presently conducting an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) investigation into allegations of misconduct in which you may have \yitnessed or had knowledge of. You are hereby notified you will be the subject of an administrative interrogation on June 22, 2018 at 1200 hours.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 249     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.