Based on the entire record, including the Court?s recollection of the trial proceedings, presentation and evidence, as well as the parties? arguments and evidence here, the Court DENIES the Motion for New Trial.
Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing juror misconduct and the standards are set forth in Barboni v. Tuomi (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 340, 345, 349.?? Much of the juror Lam?s declaration was not competent. The Evidentiary Objections are ruled on as follows:
OVERRULE:??? 1
SUSTAIN:????? 2, 3 (this is conclusory and vague), 5, 6 (this is purporting to recount the subjective state of others, i.e. what they ?wanted to? do); and 7 (the words ?substantial language barrier? is vague and seems to be an opinion as to what the juror was capable of comprehending, communicating, etc.).
SUSTAIN:????? 4 as to ?and concluded that personal injury cases are fraudulent and that the Jordan?s should actually be punished for bringing the lawsuit?.? This is purporting to recount the reasoning of another juror.
Plaintiffs argue there was bias and prejudice from a juror?s alleged comments about drug addiction and the like.? Assuming the statements were admissible, Defendants argue they were not wholly, impermissibly outside of the realm of opinions that a juror could have formed from the evidence.? Juror Lam provides no context for the statements made, in this respect.? The record reflected several motions in limine filed by the Plaintiffs to exclude evidence at trial about ?drug-seeking behavior? by the plaintiff Paula Jordan, that was said to be reflected in her medical records and such a motion in limine was denied before trial.? Other motions in limine also focused on plaintiff?s apparent chronic pain condition. [See Motions in Limine before trial and rulings, ROA # 67, 66, 62,? 49-50, and ROA #125; ROA # 62 and #125].
Under the circumstances, the Court does not find a new trial is warranted based on a substantial likelihood of actual bias or prejudicial misconduct of a juror.? While perhaps inflamed, the alleged statements could reflect or be part of a juror?s subjective thought processes, and subjective reasons for assessing credibility and deciding matters that were presented.? People v. Hedgecock (1990) 51 Cal.3d 395, 419 (when a juror during deliberations gives the reasons for his vote, those words are simply a verbal reflection of the juror’s mental processes); People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1265?67 (noting ?[t]his evidence was susceptible of various interpretations. The views the jurors allegedly asserted here were not contrary to, but came within the range of, permissible interpretations of that evidence.?).? They did not appear to rise to the level of prejudicial juror misconduct or actual bias that would justify setting aside the verdict when the entire record is considered.
Plaintiffs did not provide an adequate record of the voir dire proceedings to support the claims of misconduct in that area.? See Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; Dunford v. General Water Heater Corp. (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 260, 264; Herrera v. Hernandez (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1390.
Mr. Lam mentions a specific statement made about a juror?s parents? car accident, but this appears to be a brief, casual, and non-prejudicial remark.? Car accidents are not uncommon and could be part of people?s personal experiences; there is no indication that this juror decided anything based upon the apparent stray remark.?? See Bandana Trading Co., Inc. v. Quality Infusion Care, Inc. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1440, 1447; see also People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1265 -67.
Mr. Lam mentions specific statements made about plaintiff?s health insurance.? Defendants argue that it was not entirely improper, considering the evidence they presented on billing matters, and the difference between what was billed vs. what providers accept for full payment.? See generally Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provision (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 566; Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1324.? See also Motions in limine (ROA #43, 64, and 125).
The Court finds that these particular remarks were not sufficient to justify setting aside the verdict.? ?[T]he mere mention of insurance was not misconduct.?? Barboni v. Tuomi(2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 340, 350, 351.?? In considering whether a criminal defendant was entitled to a new trial based on a juror?s remark about him not testifying at trial, the Supreme Court said, ?[i]t is natural for jurors to wonder about a defendant’s absence from the witness stand. . . . ?Transitory comments of wonderment and curiosity? about a defendant’s failure to testify, although technically misconduct, ?are normally innocuous….’? The [juror?s] statement that defendant’s failure to testify ?came up? suggests that any comments about this subject were merely brief and passing observations, and the record offers no basis for concluding otherwise.?? People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 59 (internal citations omitted).?? That appears to be true of the alleged remarks here as well.
Mr. Lam recounts a juror?s comment about Plaintiff Paula Jordan ?sitting? and injury.? This appears to be an innocuous comment, and is not shown to have influenced the verdict improperly, and does not appear prejudicial in light of the entire record.
According to the court minutes, Plaintiff Paula Jordan was present at the trial, and the jury was generally instructed it could observe witnesses, demeanors, assess credibility, etc. (See ROA #141, 142, 147, 163, Minutes of 9/7, 9/13, 9/14 and 9/20/16; see ROA #156, instruction 107).?? See generally People v. Trujillo Garcia (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1321, 1340 (?In numerous cases, courts have found jurors’ generalized comments on matters of common knowledge or experience not to be misconduct.?).
Mr. Lam contends that one juror dominated and was hostile to him in deliberation.?? This may not be admissible and if it is, it is not insufficient to defeat the verdict.? See People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 59 (?The juror’s ambiguous and non-particularized statement about the ?general consensus of the jury? appears to fall in this category. It does not relate a specific comment that any particular juror made or offer direct quotes or statements of a factual nature, but appears to be Juror A.G.’s subjective characterization of ? what he heard.?); Bandana Trading Co., Inc. v. Quality Infusion Care, Inc. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1440, 1445-4 (a declaration stating inter alia, that jurors were discouraged from asking questions because of a dominating and aggressive juror, and they were rushed into deciding on a verdict, was not admissible evidence under Evidence Code 1150).
Mr. Lam offers a statement that ?not all of the jurors participated in the deliberation?.??? The statement is vague, conclusory, and does not provide meaningful information to overturn a verdict.? The Court cannot rely on this juror?s subjective understanding of what it may mean to deliberate.? A person can be silent and yet listening and still be engaged.? All jurors voted here according to the Polling Sheet. People v. Bowers (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 722, 733 (?formal discussion is not necessarily required to reach a decision or conclusion by deliberation. In a given case to ?deliberate? means ?to ponder or think about with measured careful consideration and often [but not necessarily] with formal discussion before reaching a decision or conclusion.?).
Mr. Lam states that a juror had a ?substantial language barrier.?? This statement is also vague, and conclusory and an opinion of sorts, and is insufficient to set aside the verdict.? Compare People v. Elam (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 298, 316; see also ROA #160, Suppl. Polling Sheet).
Plaintiffs cite Tapia v. Barker (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 761, 764. There, jurors demonstrated unacceptable prejudice and bias based on a party?s race, and they also expressed sentiments that they may personally suffer from an award of damages.? These were undoubtedly impermissible interjections in what was supposed to be a fair deliberation.?? Here, the alleged statements cannot be considered comparable.
Finally, the Court is not persuaded to grant a new trial due to inadequate damages or insufficiency of the evidence, when considering the entire record.? Plaintiffs offer no meaningful analysis of the evidence at trial, nor provide a record.? Their papers do not show specifically how the damages were inadequate or how the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict.?? Compare CCP ?657, ?658 (such a motion must be made on the minutes of the Court); Gov.Code, ? 69844; CCP ?660; Lauren H. v. Kannappan (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 834, 839 n.4.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED.