Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01404/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01404-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARTHEL DENNIS BORING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a 

limited liability company, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK 

PROPOSED TRIAL DOCUMENTS 

 Attached are the Court’s proposed closing jury 

instructions and verdict form. Any desired modifications should 

be submitted for consideration as soon as practicable. 

A. Jury Instructions 

 In the attached instructions, the Court has attempted 

to eliminate unnecessary language and to prescribe only the 

California law at issue. The goal is to “help the jurors to 

concentrate on the question[s] at hand.” Achor v. Riverside Golf 

Club, 117 F.3d 339, 341 (7th Cir. 1997). For example, the 

instruction on Plaintiff’s implied covenant of good faith and 

fair dealing claim has been tailored to what the parties state 

are the circumstances involved with this claim in the 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 24
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 

Supplemental Joint Pretrial Statement and in their respective 

trial briefs. Further, since it is undisputed that Plaintiff and 

Defendant were parties to a written contract, i.e., the Deed of 

Trust, the instruction does not ask the jury to decide as an 

element of the claim whether the parties entered into a contract. 

 The parties’ proposed damages instruction has also been 

modified. Plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to any 

accumulated loan arrears. Therefore, the instruction only 

references incurred late fees as the damages Plaintiff seeks. 

Further, the instruction omits the second paragraph of the 

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”), 

Instruction No. 350 (“Introduction to Contract Damages”), which 

concerns whether the damages sought were reasonably foreseeable 

at the time the contract was made since that principle is not at 

issue in this case. It is reasonably foreseeable that late fees 

would accumulate if Plaintiff was prevented from making required 

payments on his loan. 

 The attached nominal damages instruction is based upon 

the CACI nominal damages instruction (CACI Instruction No. 360) 

instead of the Ninth Circuit’s model instruction concerning 

nominal damages. 

 The parties have not shown that their proposed joint 

instructions nos. 21, 22, and 23 are relevant to a trial issue; 

therefore, they are not included in the attached instructions. 

 Further, the parties’ proposed joint instruction no. 6, 

the appropriateness of which depends upon the presentation of 

evidence at trial, will be given to the jury only if applicable. 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 24
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 

B. Verdict Form 

The attached verdict contains a single question on 

Plaintiff’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim 

rather than the parties’ compound, imprecise questions concerning 

this claim. See Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1395 (9th Cir. 

1991) (stating “[a]s a general rule, the court has complete 

discretion over whether to have the jury return a special verdict 

or a general verdict”). The parties’ proposed questions on this 

claim lack the concreteness required to enable the jury to decide 

specific “issues of fact.” Folmsbee v. Metro-North Commuter R. 

Co., 495 F. App’x 122, 123 (2d Cir. 2012). “[T]he questions asked 

of the jury [must] be adequate to determine the factual issues 

essential to the judgment.” Armstrong v. Burdette Tomlin Mem’l 

Hosp., 438 F.3d 240, 246 (3rd Cir. 2006). Absent such proposed 

adequacy, the attached general verdict form on this claim will be 

used. 

 Further, the parties are notified that the jury’s 

answers to Questions Nos. 3-9, which concern Plaintiff’s 

Homeowner’s Bill of Rights claims, are advisory under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c)(1) since it has not been shown that 

there are any factual issues common to Plaintiff’s legal and 

equitable claims. See, e.g., Smith Flooring, Inc. v. Pa. 

Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 713 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2013) (“The 

constitutional right to a jury trial must be preserved when the 

litigation involves legal and equitable claims with common 

issues. [T]he normal practice is to try both claims to a jury. In 

this way, the jury’s verdict will conclusively settle these 

common issues, and only issues peculiar to the equitable claim 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 24
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 

4 

will be left to be decided by the judge.” (alteration in 

original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). The 

Court will issue findings of fact and conclusions of law 

concerning the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights claims following trial. 

Dated: December 2, 2015 

 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 4 of 24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARTHEL DENNIS BORING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a 

limited liability company, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK 

CLOSING JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 5 of 24
1 

Instruction No. 1 

 Members of the jury, now that you have heard all the 

evidence and the arguments of the parties, it is my duty to 

instruct you on the law which applies to this case. Each of you 

is in possession of a copy of these jury instructions, which you 

may take into the jury room for your use during deliberations if 

you find it necessary. 

 It is your duty to find the facts from all the 

evidence in the case. To those facts you must apply the law as I 

give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you 

whether you agree with it or not. And you must not be influenced 

by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or 

sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the 

evidence before you and according to the law. You will recall 

that you took an oath promising to do so at the beginning of the 

case. 

 In following my instructions, you must follow all of 

them and not single out some and ignore others; they are all 

equally important. Do not read into these instructions or into 

anything I may have said or done any suggestion as to what 

verdict you should return—that is a matter entirely up to you. 

 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 6 of 24
2 

Instruction No. 2 

 The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the 

facts are consists of: 

 the sworn testimony of any witness; 

 the exhibits which were received into evidence; and 

 any facts to which the lawyers have agreed. 

 

 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 7 of 24
3 

Instruction No. 3 

 The parties have agreed to certain facts that have 

been read to you. You should treat these facts as having been 

proved. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 8 of 24
4 

Instruction No. 4 

 In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the 

testimony and exhibits received into evidence. Certain things 

are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what 

the facts are. I will list them for you: 

 First, arguments and statements by the lawyers are not 

evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they said in their 

opening statements, closing arguments, and at other times is 

intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not 

evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way 

the lawyers have stated them, your memory of the facts controls; 

 Second, questions and objections by the lawyers are 

not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to object when they believe 

a question is improper under the rules of evidence. You should 

not be influenced by the objection or by the court’s ruling on 

it; 

 Third, testimony that has been excluded or stricken, 

or that you have been instructed to disregard, is not evidence 

and must not be considered. In addition, if I gave a limiting 

instruction, you must follow it; 

 Fourth, anything you see or hear when the court is not 

in session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on 

the evidence received at the trial. 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 9 of 24
5 

Instruction No. 5 

 Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct 

evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a 

witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. 

Circumstantial evidence is proof of one or more facts from which 

you could find another fact. 

 You should consider both kinds of evidence. The law 

makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either 

direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how 

much weight to give to any evidence. 

 

 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 10 of 24
6 

Instruction No. 6 

 In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to 

decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to 

believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of 

it, or none of it. Proof of a fact does not necessarily depend 

on the number of witnesses who testify about it. 

 In considering the testimony of any witness, you may 

take into account: 

 the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or 

hear or know the things testified to; 

 the witness’s memory; 

 the witness’s manner while testifying; 

 the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case and 

any bias or prejudice; 

 whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s 

testimony; 

 the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light 

of all the evidence; and 

 any other factor that bears on believability. 

 The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not 

necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify about 

it. 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 11 of 24
7 

Instruction No. 7 

 When a party has the burden of proof on a claim by a 

preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by 

the evidence that the claim is more probably true than not true. 

 You should base your decision on all of the evidence, 

regardless of which party presented it. 

 

 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 12 of 24
8 

Instruction No. 8 

 In every written contract there is an implied promise 

of good faith and fair dealing. This implied promise means that 

each party to the contract will not do anything to unfairly 

interfere with the right of the other party to receive the 

benefits of the contract; however, this implied promise cannot 

create obligations that are inconsistent with the terms of the 

written contract. 

 In this case, Plaintiff and Defendant were parties to 

a written contract, the Deed of Trust. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant violated the implied promise of good faith and fair 

dealing by preventing him from making payments as required by 

the Deed of Trust. To prevail on this claim, Plaintiff must 

prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the 

evidence: 

 First, Plaintiff did all, or substantially all, of the 

significant things that the Deed of Trust required him to do; 

 Second, all conditions required for Defendant’s 

performance under the Deed of Trust had occurred; 

 Third, Defendant unfairly interfered with Plaintiff’s 

ability to make payments as required by the Deed of Trust; and 

 Fourth, Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant’s conduct. 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 13 of 24
9 

Instruction No. 9 

 If you decide that Plaintiff prevails on his implied 

promise of good faith and fair dealing claim, you also must 

determine Plaintiff’s damages. 

 Plaintiff seeks the following damages: late fees which 

Plaintiff asserts accumulated as a result of Defendant’s alleged 

interference with Plaintiff’s ability to make monthly payments 

required by the Deed of Trust. 

 Plaintiff has the burden of proving damages by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff does not have to prove 

the exact amount of damages; however, you must not speculate or 

guess in awarding damages. 

 

 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 14 of 24
10 

Instruction No. 10 

 If you decide that Plaintiff prevails on his implied 

promise of good faith and fair dealing claim but also that 

Plaintiff was not harmed, you may still award him nominal 

damages, such as one dollar. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 15 of 24
11 

Instruction No. 11 

 Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated California Civil 

Code section 2923.6. This statute prohibits a mortgage servicer 

from recording a Notice of Default or Notice of Trustee’s Sale 

while a complete loan modification application is pending. 

 To prevail on this claim, Plaintiff must prove each of 

the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 

 First, Plaintiff submitted a complete loan 

modification application to Defendant; and 

 Second, Defendant recorded a Notice of Default and/or 

a Notice of Trustee’s Sale before making a written determination 

on Plaintiff’s complete loan modification application. 

 An application for a loan modification is “complete” 

when a borrower has supplied the mortgage servicer with all 

documents required by the mortgage servicer within the 

timeframes specified by the mortgage servicer, provided that you 

find the timeframes were reasonable. 

 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 16 of 24
12 

Instruction No. 12 

 Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated California Civil 

Code Section 2923.7. This statute requires that after January 1, 

2013, upon request from a borrower who asks for a “foreclosure 

prevention alternative,” the mortgage servicer shall establish a 

“single point of contact” that is responsible for doing certain 

services. 

 To prevail on this claim, Plaintiff must prove one or 

more of the following elements by a preponderance of the 

evidence: 

 First, that after January 1, 2013, Defendant did not 

provide Plaintiff with a single point of contact responsible for 

communicating the process by which Plaintiff could apply for a 

foreclosure prevention alternative and the deadline for any 

required submissions to be considered for these options; 

 Second, that after January 1, 2013, Defendant did not 

provide Plaintiff with a single point of contact responsible for 

coordinating receipt of all documents associated with a loan 

modification application and responsible for notifying Plaintiff 

of any missing documents necessary to complete the application; 

 Third, that after January 1, 2013, Defendant did not 

provide Plaintiff with a single point of contact responsible for 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 17 of 24
13 

having access to current information and personnel sufficient to 

timely, accurately and adequately inform Plaintiff of the status 

of his loan modification application; and/or 

 Fourth, that after January 1, 2013, Defendant did not 

provide Plaintiff with an individual, or team of individuals, 

responsible for ensuring that Plaintiff was considered for a 

loan modification. 

 A “foreclosure prevention alternative” means a loan 

modification or another available loss mitigation option. 

 A “single point of contact” means an individual or 

team of personnel, each of whom has the ability and authority to 

perform the above referenced services. 

 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 18 of 24
14 

Instruction No. 13 

 If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to 

communicate with me, you may send a note through the United 

States Marshal’s representative, signed by your presiding juror 

or by one or more members of the jury. No member of the jury 

should ever attempt to communicate with me except by a signed 

writing; I will communicate with any member of the jury on 

anything concerning the case only in writing, or here in open 

court. If you send out a question, I will consult with the 

parties before answering it, which may take some time. You may 

continue your deliberations while waiting for the answer to any 

question. Remember that you are not to tell anyone - including 

me - how the jury stands, numerically or otherwise, until after 

you have reached a unanimous verdict or have been discharged. 

Do not disclose any vote count in any note to the court. 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 19 of 24
15 

Instruction No. 14 

 A verdict form has been prepared for you. After you 

have reached unanimous agreement on a verdict, your presiding 

juror will fill in the form that will be given to you, sign and 

date it, and advise the United States Marshal’s representative 

outside your door that you are ready to return to the courtroom. 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 20 of 24
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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARTHEL DENNIS BORING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a 

limited liability company, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK 

GENERAL VERDICT WITH ANSWERS TO 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS 

 WE THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY FIND THE FOLLOWING VERDICT ON THE 

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS: 

Question No. 1: Does Plaintiff prevail on his implied 

promise of good faith and fair dealing claim? 

Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(If you answered “yes,” continue to Question No. 2. If you 

answered “no,” next answer Question No. 3.) 

 Question No. 2: What is the amount of damages you award 

to Plaintiff? 

 $______________ 

(Continue to Question No. 3.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 21 of 24
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 

Question No. 3: Did Plaintiff submit a complete loan 

modification application to Defendant before June 24, 2013? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(If you answered “yes,” continue to Question No. 4. If you 

answered “no,” next answer Question No. 6.) 

 

Question No. 4: If Plaintiff submitted a complete loan 

modification application, did Defendant record a Notice of 

Default before making a written determination on Plaintiff’s loan 

modification application? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 5.) 

 

 Question No. 5: If Plaintiff submitted a complete loan 

modification application, did Defendant record a Notice of 

Trustee’s Sale before making a written determination on 

Plaintiff’s loan modification application? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 6.) 

 Question No. 6: After January 1, 2013, and before June 

24, 2013, did Defendant provide Plaintiff with a single point of 

contact responsible for communicating the process by which 

Plaintiff could apply for a foreclosure prevention alternative 

and the deadline for any required submissions to be considered 

for these options? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 7.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 22 of 24
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 

Question No. 7: After January 1, 2013, and before June 

24, 2013, did Defendant provide Plaintiff with a single point of 

contact responsible for coordinating receipt of all documents 

associated with a loan modification application and notifying 

Plaintiff of any missing documents necessary to complete the 

application? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 8.) 

 Question No. 8: After January 1, 2013, and before June 

24, 2013, did Defendant provide Plaintiff with a single point of 

contact responsible for having access to current information and 

personnel sufficient to timely, accurately, and adequately inform 

Plaintiff of the status of his loan modification application?

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 9.) 

 Question No. 9: After January 1, 2013, and before June 

24, 2013, did Defendant provide Plaintiff with a single point of 

contact responsible for ensuring that Plaintiff was considered 

for a loan modification? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 10.) 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 23 of 24
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 

4 

 Question No. 10: After June 24, 2013, did Defendant make 

a written determination on Plaintiff’s loan modification 

application? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Sign, date, and return this verdict form.) 

Dated this _____ day of December, 2015. 

 

 ___________________________________ 

 PRESIDING JUROR 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 116 Filed 12/02/15 Page 24 of 24