Loft v. Stationary Engineers

Filing 94

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 6/1/2015. (lhklc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

CHARLES LOFT,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

v.
STATIONARY ENGINEERS, LOCAL 39
PTF, LLC,
Defendant.

18
19

The parties shall file any objections to the verdict form by June 9, 2015.

20
21

Dated: June 1, 2015

22

________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1
Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

1
2

When answering the following questions and filling out this verdict form, please follow the
directions provided throughout the form. Some of the questions contain legal terms that are
defined and explained in detail in the Jury Instructions. Please refer to the Jury Instructions if you
are unsure about the meaning or usage of any legal term that appears in the questions below.

3
4
5
6

We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return the
answers under the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case.
LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT
(1) Was Charles Loft served with written specific charges against him?

7
Yes _____

No _____

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Please proceed to question number 2.
(2) Was Charles Loft given a reasonable time to prepare his defense to those charges?
Yes _____

No _____

Please proceed to question number 3
(3) Was Charles Loft given a full and fair trial?
Yes _____

No _____

15
16
17
18
19
20

If you answered “No” to any of questions 1, 2, or 3, proceed to question number 4. If you
answered “Yes” to questions 1, 2, and 3, proceed to question number 5.
(4) What are Charles Loft’s damages, if any, for violation of the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act?
$ ________________________
Please proceed to question number 5.

21

BREACH OF CONTRACT

22
(5) Did Stationary Engineers Local 39 breach the International Constitution?
23
24
25

Yes _____

No _____

If you answered “Yes” to question number 5, proceed to question number 6. If you
answered “No” to question number 5, proceed to question number 7.

26
27
28

2
Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

1
2
3

(6) What are Charles Loft’s damages, if any, for breach of contract?
$ ________________________
Please proceed to question number 7.

4

BREACH OF THE DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION

5

(7) Did Sequoia Hospital violate the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between
Stationary Engineers Local 39 and Sequoia Hospital?

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Yes _____

No _____

If you answered “Yes” to question number 7, proceed to question number 8. If you
answered “No” to question number 7, proceed to question number 11.

(8) Did Charles Loft prove that Stationary Engineers Local 39 failed to fairly represent
Charles Loft’s best interests in attempting to remedy the violation of the collective bargaining
agreement?
Yes _____

No _____

If you answered “Yes” to question number 8, proceed to question number 9. If you
answered “No” to question number 8, proceed to question number 11.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(9) Did Charles Loft prove that Stationary Engineers Local 39 acted in bad faith or in an
arbitrary or discriminatory manner when it failed to represent Charles Loft’s best interest?
Yes _____

No _____

If you answered “Yes” to question number 9, proceed to question number 10. If you
answered “No” to question number 9, proceed to question number 11.
(10) What are Charles Loft’s damages, if any, for breach of the duty of fair representation?
$ ________________________

22
Please proceed to question number 11.
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

1
2

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(11) Did Charles Loft prove that Stationary Engineers Local 39’s conduct was
outrageous?

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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

If you answered “Yes” to question number 11, proceed to question number 12. If you
answered “No” to question number 11, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the
presiding juror sign and date this form and notify the bailiff.
(12) Did Charles Loft prove that Stationary Engineers Local 39 intended to cause him
emotional distress or that Stationary Engineers Local 39 acted with reckless disregard of the
probability that he would suffer emotional distress?
Yes _____

No _____

If you answered “Yes” to question number 12, proceed to question number 13. If you
answered “No” to question number 12, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the
presiding juror sign and date this form and notify the bailiff.
(13) Did Charles Loft prove that he suffered emotional distress?
Yes _____

No _____

If you answered “Yes” to question number 13, proceed to question number 14. If you
answered “No” to question number 13, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the
presiding juror sign and date this form and notify the bailiff.
(14) Did Charles Loft prove that Stationary Engineers Local 39’s conduct was a
substantial factor in causing his severe emotional distress?
Yes _____

No _____

If you answered “Yes” to question number 14, proceed to question number 15. If you
answered “No” to question number 14, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the
presiding juror sign and date this form and notify the bailiff.
(15) What are Charles Loft’s damages, if any, for the intentional infliction of emotional
distress?
$ ________________________

25

Have the presiding juror sign and date this verdict form and notify the bailiff.

26

Signed: ___________________________________

27
28

PRESIDING JUROR
4
Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Date: ______________