Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04322/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04322-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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 

LEARNING TECHNOLOGY 

PARTNERS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNIVERSITY OF THE INCARNATE 

WORD, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-4322-PJH 

ORDER RE JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

AND VERDICT FORM 

 Having considered defendant’s proposed instruction on “interpretation – 

construction of contract – objective intent of the parties,” the court finds that such 

instruction will not be given, in light of the multiple other jury instructions on the issue of 

contract interpretation. 

As discussed at today’s charge conference, the parties shall meet and confer 

regarding any remaining instructions that are yet to be finalized, and shall submit a blind 

copy of the instructions no later than Monday, February 29, 2016, at 8:00 a.m. In 

particular, the court discussed the need to present a neutral version of the instruction on 

imputed knowledge, and the need for plaintiff to submit a proposed instruction regarding 

its affirmative defense of waiver, but on further review, the court also notes that the 

instruction on “breach of contract – essential factual elements” describes only the alleged 

breach by defendant, and does not account for defendant’s counterclaim alleging breach 

by plaintiff. Accordingly, the parties shall also submit a proposed instruction regarding 

the elements of defendant’s breach of contract counterclaim. 

Case 4:14-cv-04322-PJH Document 165 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court 

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 

tak

un

Fin

pla

de

am

Da

Regard

kes into acc

less the pa

nally, the co

aintiff’s “failu

termines th

mended to in

IT IS S

ated: Febru

ding the ve

count the di

rties can m

ourt notes t

ure to mitig

hat such an 

nclude that

SO ORDER

uary 26, 201

rdict form, a

iscussion fr

mutually agr

hat the part

ate” affirma

entry is wa

 affirmative

RED. 

16 

2

attached to

rom today’s

ree to an alt

ties’ propos

ative defens

arranted by

e defense. 

__

PH

Un

o this order 

s charge co

ternative th

sed verdict 

se to defen

y the eviden

 

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

is a specia

onference. 

hat is accep

form does 

ndant’s cou

nce, the ver

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

l verdict for

This form w

ptable to the

not accoun

nterclaim. 

rdict form w

__________

udge 

rm that 

will be used

e court. 

nt for 

If the court

will be 

_______ 

d

Case 4:14-cv-04322-PJH Document 165 Filed 02/26/16 Page 2 of 6
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 

LEARNING TECHNOLOGY 

PARTNERS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNIVERSITY OF THE INCARNATE 

WORD, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-4322-PJH 

SPECIAL VERDICT FORM 

I. Complaint of Learning Technology Partners 

With respect to the claims of Learning Technology Partners (“LTP”) against 

University of the Incarnate Word (the “University”), we answer the questions 

submitted to us as follows: 

1. Did the University breach a contract with LTP by using IZIO for ADCaP nonblended courses? 

 ___ Yes ___ No 

2. Did the University breach a contract with LTP by allowing ADCaP students 

to access IZIO for longer than 8 weeks? 

 ___ Yes ___ No 

Case 4:14-cv-04322-PJH Document 165 Filed 02/26/16 Page 3 of 6
2 

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 

If your answer to either Question 1 or Question 2 is Yes, answer Question 3. If 

you answered No to both questions, proceed to Question 6. 

3. Did LTP agree to waive or modify its right to recover all or some fees in 

connection with the ADCaP program? 

 ___ Yes ___ No 

4. Did LTP fail to mitigate or avoid its loss with respect to the ADCaP 

program? 

 ___ Yes ___ No 

5. Taking into account any waiver, modification, or failure to mitigate, what are 

LTP’s damages, if any, related to ADCaP? 

 $ _____________________ 

6. Did the University breach the exclusivity provision of the Services 

Agreement? 

 ___ Yes ___ No 

If your answer to Question 6 is Yes, answer Question 7. If you answered No to 

Question 6, proceed to Section II – Counterclaim of the University. 

7. How did the University breach the exclusivity provision? (check all that 

apply) 

 ___ Use of Apex Learning for UIW Prep 

 ___ Use of Blackboard for test courses 

 ___ Use of Blackboard following termination of the contract 

Case 4:14-cv-04322-PJH Document 165 Filed 02/26/16 Page 4 of 6
3 

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 

8. Did LTP waive its right to enforce the exclusivity provision related to UIW 

Prep? 

 ___ Yes ___ No 

 

If you answered No to Question 8, answer Question 9. If you answered Yes to 

Question 8, proceed to Section II – Counterclaim of the University. 

9. Did LTP fail to mitigate or avoid its loss with respect to any breach of 

exclusivity? 

 ___ Yes ___ No 

10. Taking into account any failure to mitigate, what are LTP’s damages for 

breach of the exclusivity provision? 

 $ ___________________ 

II. Counterclaim of the University 

11. Did LTP breach the contract with the University or the implied covenant of 

good faith and fair dealing by failing to fix the copy tool program? 

 ___ Yes ___ No 

If your answer to Question 11 is Yes, answer Question 12. If you answered No 

Question 11, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror 

sign and date this form. 

Case 4:14-cv-04322-PJH Document 165 Filed 02/26/16 Page 5 of 6
4 

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 

12. Did the University waive its right to damages related to the copy tool 

program? 

 ___ Yes ___ No 

If your answer to Question 12 is Yes, stop here, answer no further questions, and 

have the presiding juror sign and date this form. If you answered No, proceed to 

Question 13. 

13. What are the University’s damages related to the copy tool program? 

 $ ____________________ 

Signed: ______________________ 

 Presiding Juror 

Dated: _______________________ 

 

Case 4:14-cv-04322-PJH Document 165 Filed 02/26/16 Page 6 of 6