McHale v. Silicon Valley Law Group

Filing 234

Final Verdict Form. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on September 13, 2013. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES D D DISTRICT C COURT 5 NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI RN CT IFORNIA 6 7 GERARD A MCHALE, G M Case No. 1 10-cv-04864 4-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 SI ILICON VA ALLEY LAW GROUP, W Defendant. . United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 FIN NAL VERD DICT FORM M 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ated: Septem mber 13, 2013 3 Da ___ __________ ___________ __________ ________ JO OSEPH C. SP PERO Un nited States M Magistrate Ju udge 1 We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them under the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case. 2 3 4 5 1. Do you find that Plaintiff GERARD A. McHALE, P.A., TRUSTEE OF THE 1031 DEBTORS LIQUIDATING TRUST (the “BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE”), has proved by the preponderance of the evidence that SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP was negligent? 6 7 _____ Yes _____ No 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 If your answer to Question 1 is “Yes,” please answer Question 2. If your answer to Question 1 is “No,” do not answer any further questions. Please have the Jury Foreperson sign and date this Verdict Form and return it to Ms. Karen Hom. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 2. Do you find that BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to 1031 Advance? 3 4 _____ Yes _____ No 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 If your answer to Question 2 is “Yes,” please answer Question 3. If your answer to 18 Question 2 is “No,” do not answer any further questions. Please have the Jury Foreperson sign 19 and date this Verdict Form and return it to Ms. Karen Hom. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 3. What amount of money do you find to be the monetary damage sustained by 1031 Advance, Inc. which the BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE has proved by the preponderance of the evidence? 3 4 _________________ 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Please answer Question 4. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 1 4. Comparative fault: Do you find that SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 1031 Advance was negligent? 2 3 _____ Yes _____ No 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 If your answer to Question 4 is “Yes,” please answer Question 5. If your answer to Question 4 is “No,” please go directly to Question 7. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 1 2 5. Comparative Fault: Do you find that SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 1031 Advance’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to 1031 Advance? 3 4 _____ Yes _____ No 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 If your answer to Question 5 is “Yes,” please answer Question 6. If your answer to Question 5 is “No,” please go directly to Question 7. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 1 2 6. What percentage of responsibility for 1031 Advance’s harm do you assign to: SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP ______% 1031 ADVANCE, INC. ______% 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 Please answer Question 7. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 1 2 7. Do you find that SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the criminal conduct of Edward Okun was a superseding cause of 1031 Advance’s damage? 3 4 _____ Yes _____ No 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 DATE ___________________ SIGNATURE OF FOREPERSON ___________ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8

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?