Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2021-00021117-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 22, 2024

02/23/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00021117-CU-PA-CTL RAVERA VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs' Motion for a New Trial is denied. Defendant David Beakel's Motion for a New Trial is denied.

Before turning to the merits, the Court notes that the motions are addressed in conjunction because the underlying basis for the requested relief is the same.

Special Verdict Form Question 3 'Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim . . . that the judgment should be reversed [or vacated] because of that error.' (Transport Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 984, 1000 (quotation marks omitted).) '[T]he invited error doctrine applies with particular force in the area of jury instructions . . . .' (Id. (quotation marks omitted).) Here, the parties agreed on the jury instructions and agreed on the language in the special instruction.

Therefore, they cannot now argue that the error they invited entitles them to a new trial.

Juror Misconduct 'In ruling on a request for a new trial based on jury misconduct, the trial court must undertake a three-step inquiry. First, it must determine whether the affidavits supporting the motion are admissible.

(Evid.Code, § 1150.) If the evidence is admissible, the trial court must determine whether the facts establish misconduct. Lastly, assuming misconduct, the trial court must determine whether the misconduct was prejudicial.' (Whitlock v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 149, 160 (quotation marks and alterations omitted).) 'Once juror misconduct is established, a presumption of prejudice arises. [Citation.] This presumption may be rebutted only by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court's examination of the entire record to determine whether there is a reasonable probability of actual harm to the complaining party resulting from the misconduct.' (Glage v. Hawes Firearms Co. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 314, 321.) The Court admits into evidence the declarations of Mira Heil and Monroe Holland, as well as the declarations of Valerie Shields, Grant Gabriel, John D. Robinson and William D. Rodgers. Upon review of the admissible evidence, the Court finds that no juror misconduct occurred. The alleged misconduct in Ms. Heil's and Ms. Holland's declarations is contradicted by the declarations from Ms. Shields, Mr.

Gabriel, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Rodgers. The Court does not doubt that the deliberations were contentious and that there were strong personalities in the room. However, this appears to be an example of juror disagreement rather than juror misconduct. Indeed, any remarks regarding the parties' wealth or the ability to satisfy a judgment were 'shut down' and the jury repeatedly discussed that they were not to consider the parties' assets in assigning fault. (ROA 250, ¶ 5; ROA 256, ¶ 8.) Additionally, none of the juror declarations provided by Defendant County of San Diego ('County') recalled any juror Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3078617  10 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  RAVERA VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]  37-2021-00021117-CU-PA-CTL discussing their 'professional opinion' as to John Ravera's life expectancy. Even assuming such a statement was made, it clearly was not part of the deliberations to determine Plaintiffs' damages. Finally, the majority of juror declarations state that everyone on the jury was given the chance to express their opinions, that they did not feel rushed to reach a verdict and that they considered the evidence in making their decisions. Substantially similar statements were made to County employee, Carly Ray, by Cailey Rodriquez and Krista Mussey. (ROA 252, ¶¶ 5-19.) Consequently, these motions are denied.

County's Objections are overruled.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3078617  10