Malikyar v. Sramek et al

Filing 264

PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM AND FINAL CHARGE TO THE JURY Provied to Counsel on Thursday noon, June 18, 2009, at Charging Conference. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 6/18/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B)(whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ALISE MALIKYAR and ROBERT JACOBSEN, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN SRAMEK, BERNADETTE SRAMEK, HAROLD M. JAFFE, JOHN S. SRAMEK AND BERNADETTE SRAMEK REMOVABLE LIVING TRUST AND DOES 1 TO 100, inclusive, Defendants. / No. C 07-03533 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SPECIAL VERDICT FORM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Your answers to the following questions must be unanimous: 1. Have plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant violated the federal wiretapping law? Harold Jaffe John Sramek Bernadette Sramek Yes Yes Yes ______ ______ ______ No _____ No _____ No _____ 2. Have plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant violated California state eavesdropping law? Harold Jaffe John Sramek Bernadette Sramek Yes Yes Yes ______ ______ ______ No _____ No _____ No _____ United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. 3. Have plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant violated the state law against invasion of privacy? Harold Jaffe John Sramek Bernadette Sramek Yes Yes Yes ______ ______ ______ No _____ No _____ No _____ IF YOU UNANIMOUSLY ANSWER "NO" TO ALL OF THE FOREGOING, THEN YOU ARE DONE, GO TO THE END, AND SIGN AND DATE THE FORM AND ADVISE THE DEPUTY MARSHAL THAT YOU HAVE REACHED A VERDICT. If the answer to any of the foregoing questions is "Yes," then you must state the amount of actual damages, if any, proven by plaintiff Alise Malikyar, keeping in mind the specific categories of damages eligible for your consideration as set forth in the instructions. Answer the following question: 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff Alise Malikyar asserts a claim for emotional distress due to alleged interception of attorney-client telephone calls. If you find that any such interception of attorney-client telephone calls by defendants has been proven, then state the amount of emotional distress damages you find have been proven due to such interception; otherwise, state "NONE." $______________ 5. No other actual damage item has been submitted for your consideration but the federal statutes in question allow the judge to impose a statutory damage award in the amount of $100 a day per day (up to a maximum of $10,000) for any proven violations. If you have found any defendant violated the federal wiretapping statute, state the number of days proven for any such wiretap. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ______________ DAYS 6. If you find a violation on any claim herein, you must consider further whether plaintiffs have proven by clear and convincing evidence that any such defendants' conduct was malicious or in reckless disregard of plaintiffs' rights so as to warrant an award of punitive damages. Have plaintiffs proven by clear and convincing evidence that they are entitled to punitive damages? Harold Jaffe John Sramek Bernadette Sramek Yes Yes Yes ______ ______ ______ No _____ No _____ No _____ If your answer to Question No. 6 is "Yes," then a short supplemental proceeding will take place for you to decide the amount of punitive damages. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: _________________________ CONCLUSION ONCE YOU HAVE FINISHED ANSWERING THE NECESSARY QUESTIONS UNANIMOUSLY, PLEASE HAVE THE FOREPERSON SIGN AND DATE THIS FORM. THEN CONTACT THE DEPUTY MARSHAL TO INFORM HIM OR HER THAT YOU HAVE COMPLETED YOUR DELIBERATIONS. ___________________________________ FOREPERSON United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?