Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00817/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00817-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK 

VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHARLES LOFT,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATIONARY ENGINEERS, LOCAL 39 

PTF, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK 

VERDICT FORM

Dated: June 10, 2015 ________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-00817-LHK Document 104 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK 

VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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.

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?

Yes _____ No _____

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 _____

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.

Case 5:14-cv-00817-LHK Document 104 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK 

VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

BREACH OF CONTRACT

(5) Did Stationary Engineers Local 39 breach the International Constitution?

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.

(6) What are Charles Loft’s damages, if any, for breach of contract?

$ ________________________

Please proceed to question number 7.

Case 5:14-cv-00817-LHK Document 104 Filed 06/10/15 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK 

VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

BREACH OF THE DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION

(7) Did Sequoia Hospital violate the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between 

Stationary Engineers Local 39 and Sequoia Hospital?

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.

(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?

$ ________________________

Please proceed to question number 11.

Case 5:14-cv-00817-LHK Document 104 Filed 06/10/15 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK 

VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(11) Did Charles Loft prove that Stationary Engineers Local 39’s conduct was 

outrageous?

Yes _____ No _____

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.

Case 5:14-cv-00817-LHK Document 104 Filed 06/10/15 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK 

VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(15) What are Charles Loft’s damages, if any, for the intentional infliction of emotional 

distress?

$ ________________________

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

Signed: ___________________________________ Date: ______________

 PRESIDING JUROR

Case 5:14-cv-00817-LHK Document 104 Filed 06/10/15 Page 6 of 6