calwages.com

Posts Tagged ‘Law Reform’

Expedited Jury Trial Bill Passes

In Breaking News on August 25, 2010 at 4:19 pm
California State Senate chamber
Image via Wikipedia

In a positive development for both plaintiffs and defendants, a bill establishing an expedited jury trial procedure has sailed through the California Legislature.  The Wall Street Journal Law Blog and The Recorder reported today that Assembly Bill No. 2284 was approved by the legislature on a unanimous vote.  The bill, entitled the Expedited Jury Trials Act, was introduced by Assembly Member Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa).  It calls for the establishment of strealined jury trials in civil cases, where the parties stipulate to them.  Some of the highlights:

  • Waiver of all rights to appeal, motions for directed verdict, and post-trial motions;
  • Only 3 hours per side to present its case;
  • Jury sizes of 8 or fewer, with no alternates, and only 3 peremptory challenges;
  • Provision for high/low agreements: (i.e., a voluntarily agreement specifying a minimum and maximum amount of damages, regardless of the ultimate verdict issued returned by the jury).

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

New Trial Granted for Arguing to Jury That Future Wages Are Recoverable Even After Resignation

In Trial on August 16, 2010 at 6:00 am

Image by Eric Chan

In an unreported opinion, Wolfson v. Tukatech, Inc., 2010 WL 3170521 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Aug. 12, 2010), the Second District Court of Appeal considered whether a new trial was correctly ordered after plaintiff’s attorney argued to the jury about plaintiff’s right to recover for his future wages.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the new trial order because the “record supports the trial court’s finding that Wolfson’s trial counsel committed prejudicial misconduct when arguing to the jury about Wolfson’s right to recover for his future wages”.

The court held that the plaintiff’s attorney misstated the law by “repeatedly argu[ing] unauthorized instructions whose flaws should have been obvious, even after repeated objections to those instructions were sustained”; thus, the court held “that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion by finding that misconduct occurred.” Read the rest of this entry »