Justin A Gopen v. The Regents of The University of California et al

Filing 244

JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT by Judge James V. Selna. It appearing by reason of Special Verdict that Defendant, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, is entitled to recover costs against Plaintiff, JUSTIN GOPEN. Related to: Notice of Lodging 243 . (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (twdb)

1
2
3
4

JS-6

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

10
11 JUSTIN A. GOPEN,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 8:15-cv-02062-JVS-KES
[Hon. James V. Selna]
[Magistrate Judge Hon. Karen Scott]

v.

14 THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
15
Defendant.
16

JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL
VERDICT
Complaint filed:
Trial Date:

December 11, 2015
August 22, 2017

17
18

This action came on regularly for trial on August 22, 2017, in Department

19 10C, of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Jame V. Selna, presiding. Plaintiff,
20 JUSTIN GOPEN appeared by his attorney, Aaron Gopen of the Law Offices of
21 Aaron Gopen; Defendant, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
22 CALIFORNIA, appeared by its attorneys, Margaret M. Holm and Jemma E. Dunn
23 of Sedgwick, LLP.
24

A jury of 8 persons was impaneled and sworn. After hearing the evidence

25 and arguments of the parties, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause
26 was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The
27 jury deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its verdicts consisting of the
28 special issues submitted to it as follows:
85146204v1

Case No. 8:15-cv-02062-JVS-KES
-1[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

1

We the jury in above entitled-case find unanimously as follows:

2

1.

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that The Regents of

3 the University of California violated Justin Gopen's rights under American's with
4 Disabilities Act?
5

Yes

X

No

6
7

2.

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that The Regents of

8 the University of California violated Justin Gopen's rights under the Rehabilitation
9 Act?
10

Yes

X

No

11
12

3.

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that The Regents of

13 the University of California violated Justin Gopen's rights under the Unruh Act? If
14 your answer to Question No. 1 was "Yes," you must answer this question "Yes."
15

Yes

X

No

16
17

4.

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that The Regents of

18 the University of California violated Justin Gopen's rights under Disabled Persons
19 Act? If your answer to Question No. 1 was "Yes," you must answer this question
20 "Yes."
21

Yes

X

No

22
23

5.

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that The Regents of

24 the University of California violated Justin Gopen's rights under the Emergency
25 Medical Treatment and Labor Act?
26

Yes

X

No

27
28
85146204v1

Case No. 8:15-cv-02062-JVS-KES
-2[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

1

6.

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that The Regents of

2 the University of California violated Justin Gopen's rights under Health and Safety
3 Code Section 1317?
4

Yes

X

No

5
6

7.

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that The Regents of

7 the University of California committed fraud?
8

Yes

X

No

9
10

If you answered "Yes" to at least one question, answer the next question.

11 Otherwise skip to the end and sign and date the verdict.
12
13

8.

What damages do you find by a preponderance of the evidence of the

14 evidence Justin Gopen sustained for:
15

Past non-economic loss:

$ ______________

16

Future non-economic loss:

$ ______________

17
18

Count each element of damage only once even if it applies to more than one

19 claim.
20
21

9.

If you awarded damages in answering Question No. 8, did you award

22 damages for:
23

The Americans with Disability Act:

Yes

No

24

The Rehabilitation Act:

Yes

No

25
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
85146204v1

Case No. 8:15-cv-02062-JVS-KES
-3[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

1

10.

If you answered Question No. 3 concerning the Unruh Act "Yes,"

2 answer this question. In answering Question No. 8, did you include actual damages
3 for the violation of the Unruh Act?
4

Yes

No

5
6 If "Yes", how much:

$_____________

7
8

11.

If you awarded zero or less than $4,000 for each occurrence of a

9 violation of the Unruh Act, enter the difference between the amount you awarded
10 for each occurrence of a violation of the Unruh Act and $4,000. (This number
11 cannot be more than $4,000 for each occurrence.)
12
13

$____________________

14
15

12.

If you answered Question No. 4 concerning the Disabled Persons Act

16 "Yes," answer this question. In answering Question No. 8, did you include actual
17 damages for the violation of the Disabled Persons Act?
18

Yes

No

19
20 If "Yes", how much:

$_____________

21
22

12.

If you awarded zero or less than $1,000 for each occurrence of a

23 violation of the Disabled Persons Act, enter the difference between the amount you
24 awarded for each occurrence and $1,000. (This number cannot be more than $1,000
25 for each occurrence.)
26
27

$____________________

28
85146204v1

Case No. 8:15-cv-02062-JVS-KES
-4[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

1
2 Dated: September 5, 2017
3

Deborah Reza
Foreperson

4
5

It appearing by reason of Special Verdict that Defendant, THE REGENTS OF

6 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, is entitled to recover costs against Plaintiff,
7 JUSTIN GOPEN.
8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:

9

1.

Plaintiff, JUSTIN GOPEN shall take nothing from Defendant, THE

10 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
11
2.
Defendant, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
12 CALIFORNIA, shall recover against Plaintiff, JUSTIN GOPEN its allowable costs
13 in the amount of $___________ pursuant to a memorandum of costs which may be
14 filed in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54 and 28 USCS §
15 1920.
16
17 DATED: September 18, 2017
18
19
Honorable James V. Selna, Judge Presiding

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
85146204v1

Case No. 8:15-cv-02062-JVS-KES
-5[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT