Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

Stephen G. Montoya (#011791) MONTOYA JIMENEZ, P.A.
The Great American Tower 3200 North Central Avenue, Ste. 2550 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 256-6718 (fax) 256-6667

[email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

David F. Gaona (#007391) GAONA LAW FIRM
3101 North Central Avenue, Ste. 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2640 (602) 230-2636 (fax) 230-1377

[email protected]

Attorney for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Monica Ortega-Guerin, plaintiff, vs. City of Phoenix, Frank Favela, and Frank Peralta, defendants. Pursuant to this Court's Order of September 22, 2005, the parties submit their respective proposed Forms of Verdict. Dated the 16th day of November, 2005. MONTOYA JIMENEZ A Professional Association s/ Stephen G. Montoya Stephen G. Montoya 3200 North Central Avenue, Ste. 2550 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2490 Attorney for Plaintiff No. CV 04-0289-PHX-MHM Proposed Forms of Verdict

Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM

Document 43

Filed 11/16/2005

Page 1 of 11

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

s/ Stephen G. Montoya for David F. Gaona Gaona Law Firm 3101 North Central Avenue, Ste. 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2640 Attorney for Defendants

-2Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM Document 43 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 2 of 11

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

Plaintiff's Proposed Forms of Verdict
FORM OF VERDICT FOR MONICA ORTEGA-GUERIN'S CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY OF PHOENIX The jury must unanimously agree on the answers to the following questions: 1. Has Ms. Ortega-Guerin proven by a preponderance of evidence that she was subjected to a hostile work environment­as defined by this instructions­ while employed by the City of Phoenix? YES_______ NO_______

If your answer to Question Number 1 is "YES," then please answer question Number 2. If your answer to question Number 1 is "NO," then the Foreperson should sign this Form of Verdict and you should not answer Question 2. 2. State the amount of compensatory damages, if any, Ms. Ortega-Guerin should be awarded against the City of Phoenix. AMOUNT $___________

FOREPERSON____________________ DATE____________________________

-3Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM Document 43 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 3 of 11

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. 2. 1.

FORM OF VERDICT FOR MONICA ORTEGA-GUERIN'S CLAIMS AGAINST FRANK FAVELA The jury must unanimously agree on the answers to the following questions: Has Ms. Ortega-Guerin proven by a preponderance of evidence that Frank Favela directly witnessed Frank Peralta sexually harass­as defined by the Court's Jury Instructions­Ms. Ortega-Guerin and either recklessly or intentionally failed to take prompt and corrective measures to stop the harassment? YES_______ NO_______

If your answer to Question Number 1 is "YES," then please answer questions Numbers 2 and 3. If your answer to question Number 1 is "NO," then the Foreperson should sign this Form of Verdict and you should not answer Questions 2 and 3. State the amount of compensatory damages--if any--Ms. Ortega-Guerin should be awarded against Frank Favela. AMOUNT $___________

State the amount of punitive damages--if any--Ms. Ortega-Guerin should be awarded against Frank Favela. AMOUNT $___________

FOREPERSON____________________ DATE____________________________

-4Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM Document 43 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 4 of 11

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. 2. 1.

FORM OF VERDICT FOR MONICA ORTEGA-GUERIN'S CLAIMS AGAINST FRANK PERALTA The jury must unanimously agree on the answers to the following questions: Has Ms. Ortega-Guerin proven by a preponderance of evidence that she was subjected to a hostile work environment­as defined by the Court's Jury Instructions­by Frank Peralta? YES_______ NO_______

If your answer to Question Number 1 is "YES," then please answer questions Numbers 2 and 3. If your answer to question Number 1 is "NO," then the Foreperson should sign this Form of Verdict and you should not answer Questions 2 and 3. State the amount of compensatory damages--if any--Ms. Ortega-Guerin should be awarded against Frank Peralta. AMOUNT $___________

State the amount of punitive damages--if any--Ms. Ortega-Guerin should be awarded against Frank Peralta. AMOUNT $___________

FOREPERSON____________________ DATE____________________________

-5Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM Document 43 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 5 of 11

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

Defendants' Proposed Forms of Verdict WE THE JURY in the above-entitled matter, find on the questions submitted to us as follows: Part I ­ Plaintiff's Claims for Hostile Working Environment Sexual Harassment/City of Phoenix 1. Did Frank Peralta subject the Plaintiff to verbal, visual or physical conduct of a sexual nature, because of her sex, at any time? ANSWER: If the answer to Question No. 1 is "Yes," answer Question No. 2. If the answer to Question No. 1 is "No," go on to Part II and do not answer any further questions in this section. 2. Was Mr. Peralta's conduct unwelcome, as defined by the Court's jury instructions by the Plaintiff? ANSWER: If the answer to Question No. 2 is "Yes," answer Question No. 3. If the answer to Question No. 2 is "No," go on to Part II and do not answer any further questions in this section. 3. Was Mr. Peralta's conduct towards the Plaintiff severe or pervasive, and not isolated or sporadic? ANSWER: If the answer to Question No. 3 is "Yes," answer Question No. 4. If the answer to Question No. 3 is "No," go on to Part II and do not answer any further questions in this section. 4. Did Mr. Peralta's conduct unreasonably interfere with Plaintiff's work performance? ANSWER: If the answer to Question No. 4 is "Yes," answer Question No. 5. If the answer to Question No. 4 is "No," go on to Part II and do not answer any further questions in this section.

-6Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM Document 43 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 6 of 11

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

5. When Mr. Peralta engaged in the offensive conduct toward the Plaintiff, did the City of Phoenix know or should it have reasonably have known of Mr. Peralta's offensive conduct toward Plaintiff and failed to take effective remedial action? ANSWER: If the answer to Question No. 5 is "Yes," answer Question No. 6. If the answer to Question No. 5 is "No," go on to Part II and do not answer any further questions in this section. 6. Did the Plaintiff sustain damages from mental or emotional distress as a result of Mr. Peralta's harassment of her? ANSWER: If so, what amount? Part II ­ Plaintiff's Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ­ Frank Peralta 7. Did Frank Peralta engage in conduct toward the Plaintiff which he knew to be offensive and harmful, and not merely horse-play or reciprocating friendly conduct by the Plaintiff? ANSWER: If the answer to Question No. 7 is "Yes," answer Question No. 8. If the answer to Question No. 7 is "No," go on to Part III and do not answer any further questions in this section. 8. Were Mr. Peralta's actions toward the Plaintiff severe and pervasive, and not isolated or sporadic? ANSWER: If the answer to Question No. 8 is "Yes," answer Question No. 9. If the answer to Question No. 8 is "No," go on to Part III and do not answer any further questions in this section. 9. Were Mr. Peralta's actions "not welcome" as defined by the Court's jury instructions? ANSWER:

-7Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM Document 43 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 7 of 11

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

If the answer to Question No. 9 is "Yes," answer Question No. 10. If the answer to Question No. 9 is "No," go to Part III and do not answer any further questions in this section. 10. Did Mr. Peralta's conduct unreasonably interfere with the Plaintiff's work performance? ANSWER: If the answer to Question No. 10 is "Yes," answer Question No. 11. If the answer to Question No. 10 is "No," go on to Part III and do not answer any further questions in this section. 11. Did Plaintiff prove that she suffered compensatory damages from Mr. Peralta's actions? ANSWER: If so, in what amount? Part III ­ Plaintiff's Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Mr. Favela 12. Did Mr. Favela engage in acts/conduct that demonstrated a reckless or callous indifference to the Plaintiff's rights? ANSWER: If the answer to Question No. 12 is "Yes," answer Question No. 13. If the answer to Question No. 12 is "No," go on to Part IV and do not answer any further questions in this section. 13. Did Mr. Favela's conduct unreasonably interfere with the Plaintiff's work performance? ANSWER: 14. Did the Plaintiff sustain damages from mental or emotional distress as a result of Mr. Favela's actions? ANSWER: If so, in what amount? Part V ­ Punitive Damages -8Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM Document 43 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 8 of 11

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

Do not answer any of the questions in this Part V unless you have answered "Yes" to at least one of the following questions, Question No. 11 or Question No. 14. 15. If you are not answering any of the questions in this Part V, the jury foreperson should sign and date this form and return it to the Clerk of the Court. 16. Has the Plaintiff proved, by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Peralta was guilty of malice, oppression, fraud, or despicable conduct on which to base an award for punitive damages against him personally? ANSWER: If so, what amount? 17. Has the Plaintiff proved, by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Favela was guilty of malice, oppression, fraud, or despicable conduct on which to base and award of damages against him personally? ANSWER: If so, what amount?

FOREPERSON: DATE: Dated the 16th day of November, 2005. MONTOYA JIMENEZ A Professional Association s/ Stephen G. Montoya Stephen G. Montoya 3200 North Central Avenue, Ste. 2550 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2490 Attorney for Plaintiff s/ Stephen G. Montoya for David F. Gaona Gaona Law Firm 3101 North Central Avenue, Ste. 720 -9Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM Document 43 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 9 of 11

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

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2640 Attorney for Defendants

- 10 Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM Document 43 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 10 of 11

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

: I hereby certify that on November 16, 2005, I electronically transmitted the attached
document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: David F. Gaona Gaona Law Firm 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorney for Defendants

: I further certify that on November 17, 2005, the attached document was handdelivered to: The Honorable Mary H. Murguia United States District Court for the District of Arizona Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse 401 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003

s/ Stephen G. Montoya

- 11 Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM Document 43 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 11 of 11