180 cslg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733386&forum_id=2#48986988)

"I think, basically, the damage award was not a surprise," Shaller said. "This is just part and parcel of trying cases in downtown Los Angeles. I don’t think it was unreasonable. Maybe the Court of Appeals will see it differently."

As to comparing the award to other cases, the judge said: "There is nothing like this case. To me, it’s outrageous that it ever came to court," suggesting that Starbucks should have settled the case long ago. He added: "You asked for this verdict."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733386&forum_id=2#48987089)

https://youtu.be/YVHzS7B1NbI?si=lyguJlfFlviiWxkY

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733386&forum_id=2#48987094)

chandler, I think you've earned yourself some PTO!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733386&forum_id=2#48987097)

In his closing statement, Rowley made reference to the then-recent shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The shooting, Rowley said, was one way to send a message to corporate America — the wrong way. Handing down a large judgment against Starbucks, he said, was the right way.

"That’s beyond the pale," Moore said. "This is not a case about corporate greed. Interjecting that type of anti-corporate rhetoric was highly prejudicial.""

LOL Starbux lawyer is huge fucking faggot. Rowley is 180.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733386&forum_id=2#48987100)

"Starbucks argues that Mr. Rowley’s final argument inflamed the jury with

improper argument it speculates led to this verdict. However, Starbucks did not

object to any of the alleged arguments that were purportedly improper. “[W]here

misconduct of an attorney is relied on in a motion for new trial, it must be shown

that objection was made as soon as the misconduct became known.” (People v.

Rosson (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 480, 491.) The court, therefore, did not have an

opportunity to interject a ruling and admonition. If there had been an improper

argument, then Starbucks waived the right to a new trial for any attorney

misconduct by failing to object during the trial to the misconduct of which the

defense was aware, and by not requesting a jury admonition or a mistrial.

Fernandez v. Jimenez (2019) 40 Cal. App. 5 th 482, 492. A party may not wait to

see whether the jury renders a verdict in the party’s favor and, if the jury does not

10

do so, then file a motion for a new trial based upon misconduct. Garcia v.

ConMed Corp (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4 th 144, 148.

“Because the effect of misconduct can ordinarily be removed by an

instruction to the jury to disregard it, it is generally essential . . . that it be called to

the attention of the trial court at the time, to give the court an opportunity to so

act, if possible, as to correct the error and avoid a mistrial.” (Dominguez v.

Pantalone (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 201, 211–212.) None of the misconduct

claimed by Mr. Rowley could not have been cured by an appropriate admonition

by the court. Certainly, had any objection been made to the claimed misconduct,

then there would have been a pause in the argument to allow the court to

formulate and interject an admonition. Since Starbucks did not object Starbucks

cannot now complain that the improper argument somehow inflamed the jury

verdict. It should be noted that Mr. Rowley did not invite the jury to award punitive

damages, but rather clearly argued only for compensatory damages and advised

the jury that punitive damages were not appropriate. (RT 1186.)"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733386&forum_id=2#48987131)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733386&forum_id=2#48987151)