Nava v. Seadler

5 Citing cases

  1. Zeen v. Cnty. of Sonoma

    Case No. 17-cv-02056-LB (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2018)

    The court will nonetheless address his motion on the merits. Cf. Nava v. Seadler, No. C 08-3066 PSG, 2011 WL 6936341, at *2 n.13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2011) ("[Plaintiff] did not provide any citations to the trial transcript in support of her assertions regarding the defense's evidence. Although this failure alone perhaps justifies dismissal of the pending motion, the court will proceed to consider its merits.") (citations omitted).

  2. Lucero v. Ettare

    Case No. 15-cv-02654-KAW (N.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2017)   Cited 4 times

    The question of whether handcuffing constitutes excessive force is a fact-specific inquiry for the jury to decide; there is no per se rule that handcuffing constitutes excessive force. See LaLonde v. Cty. of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 960 (9th Cir. 2000); Nava v. Seadler, No. C 08-3066 PSG, 2011 WL 6936341, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2011). Giving these instructions will simply stress Plaintiff's theory, a role that the Court declines to take, particularly when Plaintiff is free to present his theory of excessive force based on tight handcuffs that were not loosened upon his request even without the jury instruction.

  3. Crowley v. Epicept Corporation

    Case No. 9-cv-641-L (BGS) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2015)

    See Huff v. Sheahan, 493 F.3d 893, 899 (7th Cir.2007) ("[W]e shall reverse when the instructions misstate the law or fail to convey the relevant legal principles in full and when those shortcomings confuse or mislead the jury and prejudice the objecting litigant." (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added); Reed v. Hoy, 909 F.2d 324, 326 (9th Cir.1989) ("We review jury instructions to determine whether, taken as a whole, they mislead the jury or state the law incorrectly to the prejudice of the objecting party."); Nava v. Seadler, 2011 WL 6936341 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec.30, 2011) ("Even assuming that the jury instruction as given was incomplete and therefore incorrect, the court finds that a new trial is not warranted because the error was more probably than not harmless."). As explained above, the jury reached its verdict without considering the "waiver issue" surrounding Par. 10.2.3 of the Agreement.

  4. Steffens v. Regus Group, PLC

    08cv1494-LAB (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    SeeHuff v. Sheahan, 493 F.3d 893, 899 (7th Cir. 2007) ("[W]e shall reverse when the instructions misstate the law or fail to convey the relevant legal principles in full and when those shortcomings confuse or mislead the jury and prejudice the objecting litigant. " (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added); Reed v. Hoy, 909 F.2d 324, 326 (9th Cir. 1989) ("We review jury instructions to determine whether, taken as a whole, they mislead the jury or state the law incorrectly to the prejudice of the objecting party."); Nava v. Seadler, 2011 WL 6936341 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2011) ("Even assuming that the jury instruction as given was incomplete and therefore incorrect, the court finds that a new trial is not warranted because the error was more probably than not harmless."). First, the difference between the Ninth Circuit instruction's definitions of "malice" and "oppression" and California's definition of those terms is so nuanced, and so much a matter of semantics, that it is largely imaginary.

  5. Steffens v. Regus Grp., PLC

    CASE NO. 08cv1494-LAB (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    See Huff v. Sheahan, 493 F.3d 893, 899 (7th Cir. 2007) ("[W]e shall reverse when the instructions misstate the law or fail to convey the relevant legal principles in full and when those shortcomings confuse or mislead the jury and prejudice the objecting litigant." (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added); Reed v. Hoy, 909 F.2d 324, 326 (9th Cir. 1989) ("We review jury instructions to determine whether, taken as a whole, they mislead the jury or state the law incorrectly to the prejudice of the objecting party."); Nava v. Seadler, 2011 WL 6936341 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2011) ("Even assuming that the jury instruction as given was incomplete and therefore incorrect, the court finds that a new trial is not warranted because the error was more probably than not harmless."). First, the difference between the Ninth Circuit instruction's definitions of "malice" and "oppression" and California's definition of those terms is so nuanced, and so much a matter of semantics, that it is largely imaginary.