1.
The court did not act properly in declining to rule on Paula’s request. A court of law can decline to rule on a matter where it lacks jurisdiction, is unable to return a suitable verdict or is apprehensive as to the nature of the case with regards to matters of law and fact. The court declining not to rule on Paula’s request to obtain leave of court to amend her claim is uncharacteristic of courts of law, especially where the petitioner seeks such indulgence in good faith. Courts operate in a manner to administer justice and fairness and provides remedies such as damages which is what Paula claims for the losses that she has incurred. The court ought to have granted Paula leave to amend her complaint before the start of discovery and trial as the point of courts is to provide redress. The court erred in declining not to rule on Paula's request.
2 .
For a court to hear or try a case, it needs to have the requisite jurisdiction to hear the case. Jurisdiction here refers to the kinds of cases a court has the authorization to hear thus different courts have different jurisdictions. A person cannot be tried by just any court therefore as the court must have the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case and must have jurisdiction over that person. Daniel is a New York citizen and thus cannot be sued in the court of a state he has never set foot in or does not have any relations with. The Los Angeles Superior Court made its assertions on having jurisdiction over Daniel on two main grounds; territorial jurisdiction, due to the transaction having happened in the state of California, and personal jurisdiction, under the minimum contacts rule, and mainly due to the sporadic and or casual activity and related lawsuits test.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
3.
The court should have declined Daniel's demand to have a doctor of Daniel's choosing medically examine Alice. This is because any expert opinions provided or medical examinations carried out should be conducted by a practitioner trusted by the court and one who is independent and will provide the court with authentic facts as to the medical state of the examinee. The court has the discretion to decide on whether Alice is to be examined medically, or have the paintings appraised by a trusted and independent expert in that particular field to determine the fair market value of the paintings. The reason as to why such a demand should be declined is to ensure that fairness is felt by both sides and any glimpse of prejudice or bias be quashed. The court should thus reject Daniel's demand to have Alice examined by an ophthalmologist of his choosing.
4.
The court ruled correctly by granting Daniel's demand compelling Paula to avail the insurance policy she has on her art collection during discovery. There is a simple reason why Daniel sought to have that insurance policy availed in court. This is because, with an insurance policy, it is easy to demonstrate whether the owner of the policy was knowledgeable as to the worth of the insured property or whether they, in good faith, believed that their property was worth the exorbitant fees being prayed for. This is because a person cannot put a low-value insurance policy on property they think to be highly valuable and vice versa. The aim of the request was to conclude therefore whether the petitioner indeed acted and relied upon the misrepresentation of the defendant. The court thus grants such a request also to ascertain that the plaintiff does not come to court with the intent to defraud and is in fact sincerely seeking redress for tortuous harm.
5.
Summary judgment refers to a judgment entered by a court for one party against another party summarily, with the court ruling that no factual issues are remaining to be heard, and thus a cause of action in a complain can be dispensed with on specific facts without necessarily needing a trial. For a motion of this kind to succeed, the movant must demonstrate that there is no actual dispute as to the material facts and thus a judgment should be entered in their favor as a matter of law. The central premise of such a motion or its success is that the movant believes that they are the outright winner and thus the case does not require to go to trial. The court acted appropriately in denying Daniel’s motion but erred in denying Paula's motion for summary judgment. This is because the case, on its merits, did not deserve to go to trial as the facts supported Paula’s case hence the citing of the CACI Rule 1920 showing that the case was straightforward enough.
6.
A Judgement Notwithstanding the verdict, JNOV, is a type of judgment as a matter of law, JMOL, where a presiding judge in a jury trial can overrule a jury decision and reverse or amend the jury’s verdict. This doctrine, however vital, is rarely granted even when sought for, even though its purpose is essential as it allows judges to exercise discretion in cases where jury decisions are deemed extreme or unreasonable. The court ruled properly in denying Daniel’s motion. Daniel's basis for requesting for a JNOV was to get a judgment of acquittal since he was found guilty. The court's ruling was appropriate as it determined the case on the facts at hand and supported the verdict of the jury in providing redress for Paula.
