Burrell et al v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 165

ORDER RE: Defendant's Objection to the Verdict Form. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on May 12, 2013. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ALMA BURRELL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
Defendant.

12
13
14
15
16

Case No.: 11-CV-4569-LHK
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S
OBJECTION TO THE VERDICT FORM

On May 11, 2013, Defendant County of Santa Clara filed an Objection to the Verdict Form,
ECF No. 164. Plaintiff has not filed any response.

17

In response to Defendant’s objection, the Court proposes adding the following jury

18

instruction No. 23, quoting language from Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal. 4th 686, 702, 219 P.3d

19

749, 758 (2009) (quoting Tavaglione v. Billings, 4 Cal. 4th 1150, 1158–1159, 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 608,

20

847 P.2d 574 (1993)):

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Double or duplicative recovery for the same items of damage amounts to
overcompensation and is therefore prohibited. In contrast, where separate items of
compensable damage are shown by distinct and independent evidence, the plaintiff
is entitled to recover the entire amount of her damages for each cause of action.
The parties shall file any objections to this proposed language, or any alternative proposed
instructions, by 5:00 p.m., May 12, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 12, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
1

Case No.: 11-CV-04569-LHK
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO THE VERDICT FORM