Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04233/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04233-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SHANNON CAMPBELL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and 

MICHAEL STUART, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK

13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY 

INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

MARK ENNIS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and 

MICHAEL STUART, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

In light of Plaintiffs’ representation that “[f]or their Bane Act claims, Plaintiffs seek only 

the statutory damages ($4,000.00),” ECF No. 358 at 2, and in light of the Court’s reading of Cal. 

Civ. Code §§ 52, 52.1, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs may only seek statutory minimum 

damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a) for their Bane Act claims. Plaintiffs may not also seek 

punitive damages and the $25,000 civil penalty provided for in Cal. Civ. Code § 52(b) for their 

Bane Act claims. The Court has modified the final jury instructions and verdict form accordingly. 

The parties shall file any objections not previously lodged with the Court by February 20, 

2015, at 11:00 a.m. 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 42
2 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 19, 2015 _______________________________ 

 LUCY H. KOH 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 2 of 42
3 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 

1. DUTY OF JURY 

Members of the Jury: Now that you have heard all of the evidence and will hear the arguments of 

the attorneys, it is my duty to instruct you as to the law of the case. 

Each of you has received a copy of these instructions that you may take with you to the jury room 

to consult during your deliberations. 

You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as indicating that I 

have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be. 

It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts you will 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. You will 

recall that you took an oath to do so. 

In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some and ignore 

others; they are all important. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 1.1C (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 3 of 42
4 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

2. BURDEN OF PROOF – PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE 

When a party has the burden of proof on any claim or affirmative defense by a preponderance of 

the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or affirmative defense 

is more probably true than not true. 

You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented it. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 1.3 (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 4 of 42
5 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

3. BURDEN OF PROOF – CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE 

When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing evidence, it 

means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or defense is highly probable. This is 

a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. 

You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented it. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 1.4 (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 5 of 42
6 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

4. TWO OR MORE PARTIES – DIFFERENT LEGAL RIGHTS 

You should decide the case as to each party separately. Unless otherwise stated, the instructions 

apply to all parties. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 1.5 (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 6 of 42
7 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

5. WHAT IS EVIDENCE 

The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are consists of: 

(1) the sworn testimony of any witness; 

(2) the exhibits which are received in evidence; and 

(3) any facts to which the lawyers have agreed. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 1.6 (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 7 of 42
8 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

6. WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE 

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: 

(1) Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not 

witnesses. What they have said in their opening statements, will say in their 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 them controls. 

(2) Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to 

their clients 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. 

(3) 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, sometimes 

testimony and exhibits are received only for a limited purpose; when I give a 

limiting instruction, you must follow it. 

(4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the Court was not in session is not 

evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at the trial. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 1.7 (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 8 of 42
9 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

7. DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 

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. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 1.9 (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 9 of 42
10 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

8. CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES 

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: 

(1) the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to; 

(2) the witness’s memory; 

(3) the witness’s manner while testifying; 

(4) the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or prejudice; 

(5) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony; 

(6) the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence; and 

(7) any other factors that bear on believability. 

The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses 

who testify about it. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 1.11 (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 10 of 42
11 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

9. EVIDENCE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE 

Some evidence may be admitted for a limited purpose only. 

When I instruct you that an item of evidence has been admitted for a limited purpose, you must 

consider it only for that limited purpose and for no other. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions – 1.8 (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 11 of 42
12 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

10. DEPOSITION IN LIEU OF LIVE TESTIMONY 

A deposition is the sworn testimony of a witness taken before trial. The witness is placed under 

oath to tell the truth and lawyers for each party may ask questions. The questions and answers are 

recorded. 

When a person is unavailable to testify at trial, the deposition of that person may be used at the 

trial. You should consider deposition testimony, presented to you in court in lieu of live testimony, 

insofar as possible, in the same way as if the witness had been present to testify. 

Do not place any significance on the behavior or tone of voice of any person reading the questions 

or answers. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 2.4 (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 12 of 42
13 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

11. IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE – WITNESS 

The evidence that a witness lied under oath on a prior occasion may be considered, along with all 

other evidence, in deciding whether or not to believe the witness and how much weight to give to 

the testimony of the witness and for no other purpose. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 2.8 (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 13 of 42
14 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

12. EVIDENCE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT 

Exhibits capable of being displayed electronically will be provided to you in that form, and you 

will be able to view them using equipment provided to you in the jury room. 

A court technician will show you how to operate the equipment and how to locate and view the 

exhibits. You will also be provided with a list of all exhibits received in evidence. If you need 

additional equipment or supplies, you may make a request by sending a note. 

In the event of any technical problem, or if you have questions about how to operate the 

equipment, you may send a note to the Bailiff, signed by your presiding juror or by one or more 

members of the jury. Be as brief as possible in describing the problem and do not refer to or 

discuss any exhibit you were attempting to view. 

If a technical problem or question requires hands-on maintenance or instruction, a court technician 

may enter the jury room with the courtroom deputy present for the sole purpose of assuring that the 

only matter that is discussed is the technical problem. When the court technician or any non-juror 

is in the jury room, the jury shall not deliberate. No juror may say anything to the court technician 

or any non-juror other than to describe the technical problem or to seek information about 

operation of equipment. Do not discuss any exhibit or any aspect of the case. 

The sole purpose of providing the equipment in the jury room is to enable jurors to view the 

exhibits received in evidence in this case. You may not use the equipment for any other purpose. 

At my direction, technicians have taken steps to make sure that the equipment does not permit 

access to the Internet or to any “outside” website, database, directory, game, or other material. Do 

not attempt to alter the equipment to obtain access to such materials. If you discover that the 

equipment provides or allows access to such materials, you must inform me immediately and 

refrain from viewing such materials. Do not remove the equipment or exhibits from the jury room, 

and do not copy the exhibits. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 2.14 (2007 Edition) (modified). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 14 of 42
15 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

II. CAUSES OF ACTION 

13. INTRODUCTION 

Ms. Campbell has brought the following causes of action against Feld Entertainment, Inc.: 

(1) Ralph Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7; 

(2) Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 (based only on Cal. Civ. Code § 43); 

(3) Battery; and 

(4) Assault. 

Ms. Campbell has brought the following causes of action against Mr. Stuart: 

(1) Ralph Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7; 

(2) Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 (based only on Cal. Civ. Code § 43); 

(3) Battery; and 

(4) Assault. 

Mr. Ennis has brought the following causes of action against Feld Entertainment, Inc.: 

(1) Ralph Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7; 

(2) Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 (based only on Cal. Civ. Code § 43); and 

(3) Battery. 

Mr. Ennis has brought the following causes of action against Mr. Stuart: 

(1) Ralph Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7; 

(2) Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 (based only on Cal. Civ. Code § 43); and 

(3) Battery. 

Ms. Campbell and Mr. Ennis bear the burden of proving each of their causes of action by a 

preponderance of the evidence. 

Sources: ECF Nos. 233, 235, 243, 285. 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 15 of 42
16 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

14. RALPH ACT – ACTS OF VIOLENCE – ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS 

To establish a Ralph Act claim based on an act of violence, a plaintiff must prove all of the 

following: 

(1) That the defendant committed an act of violence against the plaintiff; 

(2) That a substantial motivating reason for the defendant’s conduct was the defendant’s 

perception of the plaintiff’s political affiliation; 

(3) That the plaintiff was harmed; and 

(4) That the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. 

Sources: Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7(a); CACI § 3063 (modified). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 16 of 42
17 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

15. RALPH ACT – THREATS OF VIOLENCE – ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS 

To establish a Ralph Act claim based on a threat of violence, a plaintiff must prove all of the 

following: 

(1) That the defendant intentionally threatened violence against the plaintiff, whether or not the 

defendant actually intended to carry out the threat; 

(2) That a substantial motivating reason for the defendant’s conduct was the defendant’s 

perception of the plaintiff’s political affiliation; 

(3) That a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have believed that the defendant 

would carry out the threat. 

(4) That a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have been intimidated by the 

defendant’s conduct; 

(5) That the plaintiff was harmed; and 

(6) That the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. 

Sources: Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7(a); CACI § 3064 (modified). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 17 of 42
18 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

16. RALPH ACT – DEFINITION OF VIOLENCE 

“Violence” means the wrongful application of physical force against the property or the person of 

another. 

Sources: People v. Bravot, 183 Cal. App. 3d 93, 97 (1985); Arellano v. Cnty. of L.A., No. 

B213224, 2010 WL 2905954, at *4 (Cal. Ct. App. July 27, 2010) (unpublished); see also Bolbol et 

al. v. Feld Entm’t, Inc., et al., No. CV 11-05539-PSG (Jury Instructions) (Feb. 14, 2013) (ECF No. 

250). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 18 of 42
19 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

17. RALPH ACT – POLITICAL AFFILIATION 

Ms. Campbell and Mr. Ennis are animal rights activists who demonstrate against and videotape 

what they consider to be the mistreatment of circus animals. Ms. Campbell and Mr. Ennis’s 

activism and membership in Humanity Through Education constitute political affiliation for 

purposes of the Ralph Act. 

Source: ECF No. 286. 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 19 of 42
20 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

18. CAUSATION – SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR 

A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have 

contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the 

only cause of the harm. 

Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without 

that conduct. 

Sources: CACI § 430; see also Guide for Using Judicial Council of California Civil Jury 

Instructions, at xxviii (“The instructions frequently use the term ‘substantial factor’ to state the 

element of causation, rather than referring to ‘cause’ and then defining that term in a separate 

instruction as a ‘substantial factor.’ An instruction that defines ‘substantial factor’ is located in the 

Negligence series. The use of the instruction is not intended to be limited to cases involving 

negligence.”). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 20 of 42
21 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

19. BANE ACT – ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

To establish a Bane Act claim predicated on Cal. Civ. Code § 43, a plaintiff must prove all of the 

following: 

(1) That the defendant violated or attempted to violate the plaintiff’s right of protection from 

bodily restraint or harm; and 

(2) That the defendant used threats, intimidation, or coercion in violating or attempting to 

violate the plaintiff’s right of protection from bodily restraint or harm. 

Sources: Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1; Cal. Civ. Code § 43; CACI § 3066 (modified) (“Under the Unruh 

Act, if only the statutory minimum damages of $4,000 is sought, it is not necessary to prove harm 

and causation. Presumably, the same rule applies under the Bane Act as the statutory minimum of 

section 52(a) should be recoverable. Therefore, omit elements 2 and 3 unless actual damages are 

sought.” (citations omitted)); Austin B. v. Escondido Union Sch. Dist., 149 Cal. App. 4th 860, 883 

(2007) (“The word ‘interferes’ as used in the Bane Act means ‘violates.’”). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 21 of 42
22 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

20. RIGHT OF PROTECTION FROM BODILY RESTRAINT OR HARM

Under Cal. Civ. Code § 43, citizens have a right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, which 

refers to an individual’s right to be free from physical attack or the threat thereof. 

Sources: Cal. Civ. Code § 43; Atilano v. Cnty. of Butte, No. CV 07-0384-FCD, 2008 WL 4078809, 

at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2008) (quoting People v. Lashley, 1 Cal. App. 4th 938, 951 (1991)). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 22 of 42
23 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

21. BANE ACT – DEFINITION OF THREATS, INTIMIDATION, AND COERCION 

The terms “threats,” “intimidation,” and “coercion” have the following meaning: 

“Threats” are expressions of intent to inflict evil, injury, or damage on another. 

“Intimidation” means putting another person in fear for the purpose of compelling or deterring 

conduct. 

“Coercion” is the application to another of such force, either physical or moral, as to constrain him 

or her to do against his or her will something he or she would not otherwise have done or to 

prevent him or her from doing something he or she would otherwise have done. 

Source: Bolbol et al. v. Feld Entm’t, Inc., et al., No. CV 11-05539-PSG (Jury Instructions) (Feb. 

14, 2013) (ECF No. 250) (citing In re M.S., 10 Cal. 4th 698, 710 (1995)). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 23 of 42
24 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

22. BATTERY – ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

To establish a claim for battery, a plaintiff must prove all of the following: 

(1) That the defendant touched the plaintiff or caused the plaintiff to be touched with the intent 

to harm or offend the plaintiff; 

(2) That the plaintiff did not consent to the touching; 

(3) That the plaintiff was harmed or offended by the conduct; and 

(4) That a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s situation would have been offended by the 

touching. 

Sources: CACI § 1300; Yun Hee So v. Sook Ja Shin, 212 Cal. App. 4th 652, 669 (2013). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 24 of 42
25 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

23. ASSAULT – ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS 

To establish a claim for assault, a plaintiff must prove all of the following: 

(1) That the defendant threatened to touch the plaintiff in a harmful or an offensive manner; 

(2) That it reasonably appeared to the plaintiff that the defendant was about to carry out the 

threat; 

(3) That the plaintiff did not consent to the defendant’s conduct; 

(4) That the plaintiff was harmed; and 

(5) That the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. 

A touching is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity. Words alone do not 

amount to an assault. 

Source: CACI § 1301. 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 25 of 42
26 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

24. CONSENT EXPLAINED 

For claims of battery and assault, a plaintiff must prove that he or she did not consent to any 

touching or threatened touching by the defendant. A plaintiff may express consent by words or 

acts that are reasonably understood by another person as consent. 

A plaintiff may also express consent by silence or inaction if a reasonable person would understand 

that the silence or inaction intended to indicate consent. 

Source: CACI § 1302. 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 26 of 42
27 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

25. FEDERAL INJUNCTION LIMITING INSTRUCTION

In August 2009, animal rights activists Joseph Cuviello and Deniz Bolbol obtained an injunction in 

federal court allowing them and a limited number of people acting in concert with them, including 

Ms. Campbell and Mr. Ennis, to conduct activity such as videotaping, leafletting, or otherwise 

protesting near the Oracle Arena (“Arena”) in Oakland, California. 

Under the injunction operating at the time of the August 7, 2012 animal walk held in Oakland, Ms. 

Campbell and Mr. Ennis were allowed access to the following areas to conduct activity: 

(1) A three-foot “walkway” running along the outside of the chain link fence that encloses the 

truck corral; 

(2) The barricaded corridor leading to the animal compound, the area outside of but directly 

adjacent to the corridor, and the gap between the corridor and the animal compound entrance 

except that there shall be a ten-foot buffer zone surrounding the entrance of the compound; 

(Ms. Campbell and Mr. Ennis could be temporarily moved from the gap to permit movement 

of equipment and animals.) 

(3) The upper west landing area, up to the point where the west ramp joins the landing; 

(4) One specific spot located in the area adjacent to the entrance to the north tunnel, which has a 

clear view of the entire tunnel; 

(5) The north ramp and landing; 

(6) The northeast stairs and base of the stairs; and 

(7) All exterior areas of the Arena and parking lot which are otherwise open to the public. 

The injunction was legally binding against the City of Oakland, Alameda County, the OaklandAlameda County Coliseum Authority, and the Oakland Coliseum Joint Venture LLC, among 

others. Feld Entertainment, Inc. and Mr. Stuart were not legally bound by that injunction. 

You may consider the existence and parameters of the injunction only insofar as you find it 

relevant to whether a reasonable person with knowledge of the injunction would have found any of 

the alleged touchings or threatened touchings sustained by Ms. Campbell and Mr. Ennis to be 

offensive and/or whether Feld Entertainment, Inc. and Mr. Stuart, if they were aware of the 

injunction, acted with malice towards Ms. Campbell and Mr. Ennis. 

Source: Cuviello v. City of Oakland, No. C-06-5517 EMC, 2012 WL 5628325, at *1-2, *5 (N.D. 

Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) (describing the August 2009 injunction and the August 2010 modification 

thereto). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 27 of 42
28 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

26. SELF-DEFENSE 

To prevail on an affirmative defense of self-defense, a defendant must prove both of the following: 

(1) That the defendant reasonably believed that the plaintiff was going to harm him or her; and 

(2) That the defendant used only the amount of force that was reasonably necessary to protect 

himself or herself. 

Source: CACI § 1304. 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 28 of 42
29 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

27. AIDING AND ABETTING – ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS 

Ms. Campbell claims that she was harmed by Mr. Stuart’s assault and battery and that Mr. Stuart is 

responsible for that harm. In addition, Ms. Campbell claims that she was harmed by Mr. Murray’s 

assault and battery and that Mr. Stuart is also responsible for that harm because he aided and 

abetted Mr. Murray in committing the assault and battery. 

A defendant is responsible as an aider and abetter if the plaintiff proves all of the following: 

(1) That the defendant knew that an assault or battery was being committed or going to be 

committed by another individual against the plaintiff; 

(2) That the defendant gave substantial assistance or encouragement to the other individual; 

and 

(3) That the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff. 

Mere knowledge that an assault or battery was being committed or going to be committed and the 

failure to prevent it do not constitute aiding and abetting. 

Source: CACI § 3610. 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 29 of 42
30 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

III. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR 

28. CORPORATIONS – FAIR TREATMENT 

All parties are equal before the law and a corporation is entitled to the same fair and conscientious 

consideration by you as any party. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 4.1 (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 30 of 42
31 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

29. VICARIOUS LIABILITY 

An employer is responsible for harm caused by the wrongful conduct of its employees while acting 

within the scope of their employment. 

Source: CACI § 3700. 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 31 of 42
32 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

30. VICARIOUS LIABILITY ASSERTED AGAINST EMPLOYER – 

ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS 

An employer should be held liable for the harm caused by the unlawful actions of its employees if 

the plaintiff proves both of the following: 

(1) That the offending individual was employed by the employer; and 

(2) That the offending individual was acting within the scope of his or her employment when 

the plaintiff was harmed. 

Source: CACI § 3701. 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 32 of 42
33 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

31. SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT 

Conduct is within the scope of employment if: 

(1) It is reasonably related to the kinds of tasks that the employee was employed to perform; or 

(2) It is reasonably foreseeable in light of the employer’s business or the employee’s job 

responsibilities. 

Source: CACI § 3720. 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 33 of 42
34 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

32. FORESEEABILITY 

Foreseeability means that, in the context of the particular enterprise, an employee’s conduct is not 

so unusual or startling that it would seem unfair to include the loss resulting from it among other 

costs of the employer’s business. Conduct by an employee is not reasonably foreseeable if it 

occurs when the employee substantially deviates from his or her employment duties for personal 

purposes or acts out of malice unconnected with the employment. 

Source: Farmers Ins. Grp. v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 11 Cal. 4th 992, 1004-05 (1995). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 34 of 42
35 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

33. GOING-AND-COMING RULE 

In general, an employee is not acting within the scope of employment while traveling to and from 

the workplace. But if the employee, while commuting, is on an errand for the employer, then the 

employee’s conduct is within the scope of his or her employment from the time the employee starts 

on the errand until he or she returns from the errand or until he or she completely abandons the 

errand for personal reasons. 

Source: CACI § 3724. 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 35 of 42
36 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

IV. DAMAGES

34. DAMAGES – OVERVIEW 

It is the duty of the Court to instruct you about the measure of damages. By instructing you on 

damages, the Court does not mean to suggest for which party your verdict should be rendered. 

If you find for Ms. Campbell and Mr. Ennis, you must determine their damages. Ms. Campbell 

and Mr. Ennis have the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence. Damages 

means the amount of money that will reasonably and fairly compensate the plaintiff for any injury 

you find was caused by the defendants. 

Ms. Campbell seeks emotional distress damages for her assault, battery, and Ralph Act causes of 

action. Mr. Ennis seeks emotional distress damages for his battery and Ralph Act causes of action. 

No fixed standard exists for deciding the amount of emotional distress damages. The plaintiff must 

prove the amount of his or her emotional distress damages. However, the plaintiff does not have to 

prove the exact amount of the harm or the exact amount of damages that will provide reasonable 

compensation for the harm. You must not speculate or guess in awarding damages. You must use 

your judgment to decide a reasonable amount based on the evidence and your common sense. 

Emotional distress damages are recoverable only once regardless of the number of causes of action 

alleged. 

Ms. Campbell and Mr. Ennis also seek punitive damages from Feld Entertainment, Inc. for these 

causes of action. Ms. Campbell and Mr. Ennis have the burden of proving punitive damages by 

clear and convincing evidence. An instruction on punitive damages will follow. 

In addition, if you decide that a plaintiff has proved his or her Ralph Act claim against a defendant, 

you must award a civil penalty of $25,000. 

If you decide that a plaintiff has proved his or her Bane Act claim against a defendant, you must 

determine the number of Bane Act violations and award $4,000 per violation. Ms. Campbell and 

Mr. Ennis do not seek punitive damages for their Bane Act claims against any defendant. 

Sources: Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51.7, 52, 52.1; Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction - 5.1 (2007 

Edition) (modified); CACI §§ 3066 (modified), 3067 (modified), 3068 (modified), 3905A 

(modified), 3934 (modified); L.A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth. v. Super. Ct., 123 Cal. App. 4th 261, 

266-67 (2004). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 36 of 42
37 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

35. MITIGATION OF DAMAGES 

If you decide that a defendant is responsible for the original harm, the plaintiff is not entitled to 

recover damages for harm that the defendant proves the plaintiff could have avoided with 

reasonable efforts or expenditures. 

You should consider the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s efforts in light of the circumstances 

facing him or her at the time, including his or her ability to make the efforts or expenditures 

without undue risk or hardship. 

If a plaintiff made reasonable efforts to avoid harm, then your award should include reasonable 

amounts that he or she spent for this purpose. 

Source: CACI § 3930. 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 37 of 42
38 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

36. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 

If you decide that Feld Entertainment, Inc.’s conduct caused a plaintiff’s harm, you must decide 

whether that conduct justifies an award of punitive damages. The purposes of punitive damages 

are to punish a wrongdoer for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff and to discourage similar 

conduct in the future. 

Feld Entertainment, Inc. is an entity defendant. You may award punitive damages against an entity 

defendant only if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the entity acted with 

malice, oppression, or fraud. To do this, the plaintiff must prove the following by clear and 

convincing evidence: 

(1) That the malice, oppression, or fraud was the conduct of one or more officers, directors, or 

managing agents of the entity, who acted on behalf of the entity; or 

(2) That an officer, a director, or a managing agent of the entity had advance knowledge of the 

unfitness of the entity’s employees and employed them with a knowing disregard of the 

rights or safety of others; or 

(3) That the conduct constituting malice, oppression, or fraud was authorized by one or more 

officers, directors, or managing agents of the entity; or 

(4) That one or more officers, directors, or managing agents of the entity knew of the conduct 

constituting malice, oppression, or fraud and adopted or approved that conduct after it 

occurred. 

“Malice” means that a defendant acted with intent to cause injury or that a defendant’s conduct was 

despicable and was done with a willful and knowing disregard of the rights or safety of another. A 

defendant acts with knowing disregard when the defendant is aware of the probable dangerous 

consequences of its conduct and deliberately fails to avoid those consequences. 

“Oppression” means that a defendant’s conduct was despicable and subjected the plaintiff to cruel 

and unjust hardship in knowing disregard of his or her rights. 

“Despicable conduct” is conduct that is so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down 

on and despised by reasonable people. 

“Fraud” means that a defendant intentionally misrepresented or concealed a material fact and did 

so intend to harm the plaintiff. 

An employee is a “managing agent” if he or she exercises substantial independent authority and 

judgment in his or her corporate decisionmaking such that his or her decisions ultimately determine 

corporate policy. 

There is no fixed formula for determining the amount of punitive damages, and you are not 

required to award any punitive damages. If you decide to award punitive damages, you should 

consider all of the following factors in determining the amount: 

(1) How reprehensible was the defendant’s conduct? In deciding how reprehensible a 

defendant’s conduct was, you may consider, among other factors: 

(a) Whether the conduct caused physical harm; 

(b) Whether the defendant disregarded the health or safety of others; 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 38 of 42
39 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

(c) Whether the plaintiff was financially weak or vulnerable and the defendant knew the 

plaintiff was financially weak or vulnerable and took advantage of him or her; 

(d) Whether the defendant’s conduct involved a pattern or practice; and 

(e) Whether the defendant acted with trickery or deceit. 

(2) Is there a reasonable relationship between the amount of punitive damages and the 

plaintiff’s harm that the defendant knew was likely to occur because of its conduct? 

(3) In view of the defendant’s financial condition, what amount is necessary to punish it and 

discourage future wrongful conduct? You may not increase the punitive award above an 

amount that is otherwise appropriate merely because a defendant has substantial financial 

resources. Any award you impose may not exceed the defendant’s ability to pay. 

Sources: CACI § 3947 (modified); Bolbol et al. v. Feld Entm’t, Inc., et al., No. CV 11-05539-PSG 

(Jury Instructions) (Feb. 14, 2013) (ECF No. 250). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 39 of 42
40 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

V. CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS

37. DUTY TO DELIBERATE 

When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one member of the jury as your presiding 

juror. That person will preside over the deliberations and speak for you here in court. 

You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to reach agreement if you can do so. Your 

verdict must be unanimous. 

Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so only after you have considered 

all of the evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow 

jurors. 

Do not hesitate to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you should. Do not 

come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right. 

It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous verdict but, of course, only if each of you can 

do so after having made your own conscientious decision. Do not change an honest belief about 

the weight and effect of the evidence simply to reach a verdict. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 3.1 (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 40 of 42
41 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

38. COMMUNICATION WITH COURT 

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you may send a note 

through the Bailiff 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. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 3.2 (2007 Edition). 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 41 of 42
42 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

[AMENDED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED) 

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 

39. RETURN OF VERDICT 

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 has been given to you, sign and date it, and 

advise the Court that you are ready to return to the courtroom. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions - 3.3 (2007 Edition). 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 364 Filed 02/19/15 Page 42 of 42