Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 49 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1181

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 49 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1181"

Preston Lang
5 years ago
Views:

1 Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 49 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1181 File No.: Dvorak & Associates, LLC 390 George Street New Brunswick;, New Jersey (732) RECEIVED DEC AT 8:30 M WILLIAM T WALSH CLERK (732) (FAX) Attorneys for Defendants, Township of Franklin, Township of Franklin Police Department, Robert Nemes, and Elliot Smith UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY PATRICIA ROCCISANO and KRIST! KIZMANN, v. Plaintiffs, TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN, TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ROBERT NEMES, ELLIOT SMITH, and JOHN DOES 1-10 (names being fictitious), Civil Action No.: 3:11-cv-6558-FLW-LHG ORDER TO VACATE JUDGMENT Defendants. This matter having been opened to the Court by Dvorak & Associates, LLC, attorneys for the Defendants Township of Franklin, Township of Franklin Police Department, Robert Nemes, and Elliot Smith, in the above-captioned matter, for an Order to vacate judgment against defendant Robert Nemes, the parties having consented to same as the trial came to a verdict but was settled before completion of all trial proceedings, and the Court having considered this matter and good cause appearing: IT IS ON THIS g~ day of ~---~---' 2014 ORDERED that the judgment in the amount of one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00), as reflected on the docket as entries #46, 47 and 48, be and is hereby vacated as to defendant Robert Nemes; and it is further

2 Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 49 Filed 12/09/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1182 ORDERED that a true copy of this Order shall be served upon all counsel of record via the Court's ECF system. U.S.D.J Dated: December t, 2014

3 Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 48 Filed 12/03/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY PATRICIA ROCCISANO and KRIST! KIZMANN, v. Plaintiffs, TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN, TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ROBERT NEMES, ELLIOT SMITH, and JOHN DOES 1-10 (names being fictitious), Civil Action No.: 3:11-cv-6558-FLW-LHG VERDICT SHEET Defendants. 1. Has Plaintiff proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Nemes used excessive force in-violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights in effectuating her arrest? Robert Nemes Yes/ No Vote ~ G-~ Has Plaintiff proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants Nemes and/or Smith used excessive force in violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights in the handcuffing of the Plaintiff? Robert Nemes Yes No V Yote f'-o Elliot Smith Yes No~ Vote? If you answered "no," to questions 1 and 2, stop your deliberations and return your verdict sheet. If you answered "yes" to any Defendant in questions 1 or 2, continue to question Has Plaintiff proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the actions of the Defendant for whom you answered "yes" in questions 1 or 2 proximately caused damages? (Answer only for the person(s) to which you answered "yes" in questions 1 or 2). 1- ( Robert Nemes Yes.{ No Vote Elliot Smith Yes No ( Vote r-o

4 '/ Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 48 Filed 12/03/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1179 If you answered "yes" to any Defendant in question 3, proceed to question 4. If you answered "no" for both Defendants in:question 3, award Plaintiff $1 in nominal damages. 4. What amount of money will fairly compensate Plaintiff for her damages? Amount $ ( 1 (J),O Vote ~ , '--~-~ -2-

5 Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 48 Filed 12/03/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1180 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY PATRICIA ROCCISANO and KRISTI KIZMANN, v. Plaintiffs, TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN, TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ROBERT NEMES, ELLIOT SMITH, and JOHN DOES 1-10 (names being fictitious), Civil Action No.: 3:11-cv-6558-FLW-LHG SPECIAL JURY INTERROGATORIES Defendants. 1. Did Officer Nemes use force, by either pushing the door into Plaintiff, or by shoving Plaintiff into the wall, to effectuate Plaintiff's arrest? ~- Yes No Vote ~-c) Did Officer Smith use force, by either pushing the door into Plaintiff, or by shoving Plaintiff into the wall, to effectuate Plaintiff's arrest? Yes ---- No a_l Vote ~-(). 3. Did Officers Nemes and Smith handcuff Plaintiff in such a way as to cause her undue pain and/or injury? Yes NoV' Vote Did Plaintiff communicate to either Officer that the handcuffs were causing her pain? Yes/ No Vote

6 Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 50-3 Filed 12/23/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1188

7 Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 50-3 Filed 12/23/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 1189

8 Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 50-3 Filed 12/23/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 1190

9 Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 50-3 Filed 12/23/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 1191

10 Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 50-3 Filed 12/23/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 1192

11 Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 50-3 Filed 12/23/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 1193

12 Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 50-3 Filed 12/23/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 1194

13 Case 3:11-cv FLW-LHG Document 50-3 Filed 12/23/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 1195

7.32 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: INTERROGATORIES (Approved before 1985) NOTE TO JUDGE

CHARGE 7.32 Page 1 of 9 7.32 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: INTERROGATORIES (Approved before 1985) NOTE TO JUDGE The interrogatories selected by the Committee for submission to the jury on the issue of comparative