Rule 51 - Instructions to the Jury; Objections; Preserving a Claim of Error

13 Citing briefs

  1. Roger Cleveland Golf Company Inc v. Prince et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for New Trial MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Motion for New Trial, Motion for Relief from Judgment, 135 Supplemental MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of LawSupplemental MOTION for New TrialSupplemental MOTION for Relief from Judgment Response

    Filed May 9, 2011

    An objection to an instruction is waived if it is not properly preserved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 51 and can only be considered by the Court upon a showing of plain error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(2); Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d at 1399. B. The Instructions Taken as a Whole Adequately Explained the Law As stated infra, the instructions regarding the requisite level of knowledge were as follows: Knowledge in this context means that Bright Builders had more than a general knowledge or reason to know that its service was being used to sell counterfeit goods.

  2. Kenneth Aaron Shinedling et al v. Sunbeam Products Inc et al

    OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for New Trial Per FRCP 59

    Filed September 14, 2015

    THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS WERE PROPER A. The Jury Was Properly Instructed on Negligent Recall, and Defendant Waived Any Objection to the Instructions “For an objection to a jury instruction to be valid, the objection must be made ‘on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection.’” Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c)(1); Medtronic, Inc. v. White 526 F3d 487, 495 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, the objection must be sufficiently specific to “bring into focus the precise nature of the alleged error.”

  3. Navcom Technology, Inc et al v. OKI Semiconductor America, Inc et al

    OPPOSITION to

    Filed July 9, 2014

    Rule 51 is quite explicit that “[n]o party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 51. This court has enjoyed a reputation as the strictest enforcer of Rule 51; we have declared that there is no “plain error” exception in civil cases in this circuit.

  4. Capitol Records, Inc et al v. Thomas-Rasset

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for New Trial Remittitur, and to Alter or Amend the Judgment

    Filed August 14, 2009

    The Court, in turn, proposed to instruct the jury that it could award statutory damages for each infringement proved at trial anywhere within the range established by Congress. Not only did Defendant not object to these instructions, she had herself submitted proposed jury instructions expressly asking that 2 See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d) (“A party may assign as error: (A) an error in an instruction actually given, if that party properly objected; or (B) a failure to give an instruction, if that party properly requested it and—unless the court rejected the request in a definitive ruling on the record—also properly objected.”); Smith v. Updegraff, 744 F.2d 1354, 1367 (8th Cir. 1984) (“We believe Rule 51 was intended to encompass jury verdict forms and find no compelling reason to decide otherwise.”)

  5. Ferrari, et al v. Accredo Health, Inc., et al

    MOTION in Limine Lead Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine #16 to Provide Certain Preliminary Jury Instructions

    Filed September 8, 2008

    Civil Action No. 03-2216-BBD CLASS ACTION LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE #16 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS Case 2:03-cv-02216-BBD-gbc Document 439 Filed 09/08/08 Page 1 of 11 - 1 - Lead Plaintiffs, Louisiana School Employees’ Retirement System and Debra Swiman (together, “Lead Plaintiffs”) and the Class of investors who purchased Accredo stock between June 16, 2002 and April 7, 2003, respectfully ask the Court to provide certain preliminary jury instructions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(b)(3). According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(b)(3), “[t]he court . . . may instruct the jury at any time before the jury is discharged.” Lead Plaintiffs request that the Court instruct the jury regarding: direct and circumstantial evidence; corporate entities as parties; class actions; a summary of the case; the purpose of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; the definitions of recurring securities terms; and the burden of proof before evidence is presented, and ask the Court to re-read these instructions to the jury along with the other instructions at the close of the liability phase.

  6. Cleavenger v. McDermed, et al.

    Response to Motion for New Trial - Defendants' Alternative Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and for New Trial or Remittitur 186 .

    Filed December 29, 2015

    The defendants should not be permitted to benefit from this sort of gamesmanship. FRCP 51, as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit, prohibits any party from appealing the verdict form unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to deliberate. Ayuyu v. Tagabuel, 284 F.3d 1023, 1026 (9th Cir. 2002).

  7. Navcom Technology, Inc et al v. OKI Semiconductor America, Inc et al

    REPLY

    Filed July 16, 2014

    497:12-498:18. As between those two options, Plaintiffs argued against traditional bifurcation in part by suggesting that the Court stick with its original plan, but also argued again that this case was “just like any 6 Oki offers no authority for its application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 51 to bifurcation rulings. Dkt.

  8. BAEZ v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

    MEMORANDUM, FILED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE NORMA L. SHAPIRO ON 7/22/13. 7/22/13 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.

    Filed July 23, 2013

    “A court may consider a plain error in the instructions that has not been preserved as required by Rule 51(d)(1) if the error affects substantial rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(2). “[A] district court also must utilize plain error review when deciding whether to grant a reversal or new trial based on objections untimely raised.”

  9. Abdeljalil v. General Electric Capital Corporation

    MOTION to Dismiss Class Allegations in Second Amended Complaint

    Filed November 2, 2012

    For each of these independent reasons, this case cannot proceed on a class basis, and the Court should dismiss the class allegations. DATED: November 2, 2012 HODEL BRIGGS WINTER LLP KARLA J. KRAFT FRED L. WILKS By: s/ FRED L. WILKS FRED L. WILKS Attorneys for Defendant GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION 15 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ALLEGATIONS Case 3:12-cv-02078-JAH-MDD Document 15 Filed 11/02/12 Page 21 of 22 1 PROOF OF SERVICE [F.R.C.P. §51 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ) ss: ) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18, and not a party to the within action.

  10. Jaffe v. Household Intl Inc, et al

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed August 3, 2009

    Each of the plain errors discussed below was clear and obvious and af- fected Defendants’ substantial rights, influencing the outcome of the proceedings to Defendants’ prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(2). 1.