Mitchell Engineering v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 342

VERDICT FORM (FINAL) (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2010)

Mitchell Engineering v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Doc. 342

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Part I. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and ANTHONY IRONS, Defendants. / SPECIAL VERDICT MITCHELL ENGINEERING, Plaintiff, No. C 08-04022 SI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

We the jury unanimously find as follows on the questions submitted to us: Claim against Defendants Anthony Irons and City and County of San Francisco (First Amendment/Public Contractor Speech)

A. Did plaintiff Mitchell Engineering prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements necessary to establish the following? 1. That Mitchell Engineering spoke out publicly as a citizen and not as part of its official duties as a public works contractor. __________ Yes 2. __________ No

That Anthony Irons took an adverse action against Mitchell Engineering. __________ No

__________ Yes

3. That Mitchell Engineering's speech was a substantial or motivating factor for the adverse action. __________ Yes __________ No

If your answer to any of questions I-A(1), A(2) or A(3) was "No," do not answer the following questions, but go directly to Part II. Otherwise, please answer the next questions.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

B. Did defendants prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements necessary to establish the following? 1. That the defendant had an adequate justification for treating Mitchell Engineering differently from other members of the general public. __________ Yes __________ No

2. That the defendant would have taken the adverse action even absent Mitchell Engineering's protected speech. __________ Yes __________ No

If your question to either of questions I-B(1) or B(2) was "Yes," please do not answer the following questions, but go directly to Part II. Otherwise, please answer the next questions. C. Did plaintiff Mitchell Engineering prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements necessary to establish the following? 1. Susan Leal ratified Anthony Irons' act and the basis for it, that is, Susan Leal knew of and specifically approved of Anthony Iron's acts. __________ Yes __________ No

Please go to Part II.

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Part II.

Claim against Defendant City and County of San Francisco (Procedural Due Process)

A. Did plaintiff Mitchell Engineering prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements necessary to establish the following? 1. That in terminating the Central Pump contract, defendant Anthony Irons acted with the specific intent of debarring Mitchell Engineering from the bidding process for public contracts. __________ Yes __________ No

2. That in terminating the Central Pump contract, Anthony Irons in fact debarred Mitchell Engineering. __________ Yes __________ No

:

3. That Mitchell Engineering was not provided adequate procedural protections in connection with being debarred. __________ Yes __________ No

4. Susan Leal ratified Anthony Irons' act and the basis for it, that is, Susan Leal knew of and specifically approved of Irons' acts. __________ Yes __________ No

If your answer to any of questions II-A(1), A(2), A(3) or A(4) was "No," do not answer the following questions, but go directly to Part III. Otherwise, please answer the next questions. B. Did defendants prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements necessary to establish the following? 1. That the defendant would have taken the actions that debarred Mitchell Engineering even if the defendant had not actually intended to debar Mitchell Engineering. __________ Yes Please go to Part III. __________ No

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Part III:

Damages:

If your answer to Question I-B(1) or I-B(2) was "Yes" or blank, and your answer to Question II-B(1) was "Yes" or blank, do not answer any further questions. Instead, go directly to the end of the verdict form, and sign and date it where indicated. Otherwise, please answer the next questions. A. Did Mitchell Engineering prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it was caused damage by the constitutional violation(s) you have found? __________ Yes B. __________ No

If so, what is the amount of damages that Mitchell Engineering proved, after taking into account any failure to mitigate damages proved by defendant? $____________________________

Part IV:

Malicious, Oppressive or Reckless Conduct:

If your answer to Question I-B(1) or I-B(2) was "Yes" or blank, do not answer any further questions. Instead, go directly to the end of the verdict form, and sign and date it where indicated. Otherwise, please answer the next question. A. Did Mitchell Engineering prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct of defendant Anthony Irons in connection with the First Amendment claim both harmed the plaintiff and was malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights, as those terms have been defined for you in these instructions? __________ Yes __________ No

Dated:

_________________________ FOREPERSON

4