Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04927/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04927-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLTON SULLINS, an individual, RITA

SULLINS, an individual, DON-SUL,

INC., a California Corporation,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

EXXON/MOBIL CORPORATION, a New Jersey

Corporation,

Defendant. /

No. 08-04927 CW

VERDICT FORM

We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, find the following

verdict on the following questions submitted to us. “Plaintiffs”

shall refer to Plaintiffs Carlton A. Sullins, Rita Sullins and DonSul, Inc. “ExxonMobil” shall refer to Defendant ExxonMobil

Corporation.

We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:

1. Did ExxonMobil cause any portion of the contamination on

the property located at 187 North L. Street, Livermore, California.

(Property)?

Yes ____ No ____

If your answer to question 1 is “Yes,” then answer question 2. 

If you answered “No,” stop here, answer no further questions, and

have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

2. Did contamination caused by ExxonMobil substantially and

unreasonably interfere with Plaintiffs’ use or enjoyment of the

Case 4:08-cv-04927-CW Document 96 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

Property?

Yes ____ No ____

If your answer to question 2 is “Yes,” then answer question 3.

If you answered “No,” stop here, answer no further questions, and

have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

3. Would an ordinary person have been reasonably annoyed or

disturbed by the contamination caused by ExxonMobil?

Yes ____ No ____

If your answer to question 3 is “Yes,” then answer question 4. 

If you answered “No,” stop here, answer no further questions, and

have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

4. Was the contamination caused by ExxonMobil a substantial

factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs?

Yes ____ No ____

If your answer to question 4 is “Yes,” then answer question 5. 

If you answered “No,” stop here, answer no further questions, and

have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

5. If all the contamination on Plaintiffs’ property is

represented as 100%, what percentage of the contamination do you

find was caused by ExxonMobil?

________%

6. The parties agree that Plaintiffs incurred costs in the

amount of $42,377.95 to investigate and remediate all of the

Case 4:08-cv-04927-CW Document 96 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

contamination on their Property between September 24, 2005 and

today that were not reimbursed by the Underground Storage Tank

Fund. What amount, if any, of these costs do you find was caused

by ExxonMobil’s conduct?

$__________

Please have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

Signed:____________________

 Presiding Juror

Dated: ____________________

After this verdict form has been signed, please deliver it to

the clerk or bailiff.

Case 4:08-cv-04927-CW Document 96 Filed 07/21/10 Page 3 of 3