Luo v. AIK Renovation Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 8, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-05878·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: cane ccna nanan sana nnnnana DATE FILED:_11/8/24 SHIXUAN LUO, : Plaintiff, : : 23-cv-5878 (LJL) -v- : : ORDER AIK RENOVATION INC., STEVE NEJASMIC, and : MICHAEL RENOSIS, : Defendants. : LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: The Court has attached to this Order a planned voir dire for the trial in this case. In preparing the planned voir dire, the Court has considered the submission by the parties at Dkt. No. 41. The parties should be prepared to discuss any proposed alterations to the planned voir dire at the conference on November 12, 2024. The Court notes for the attention of the parties the language at 12-13 below discussing the Court’s plan to allow limited juror questioning aimed at clarification of testimony. The procedure for such questioning is described in United States v. Bush: “(1) jurors should be instructed to submit their questions in writing to the judge; (2) outside the presence of the jury, the judge should review the questions with counsel, who may then object; and (3) the court itself should put the approved questions to the witnesses.” 47 F.3d 511 (2d Cir. 1995). Any questions or concerns regarding such practice should be raised at the conference on November 12, 2024. SO ORDERED. □ ow i = Dated: November 8, 2024 wt MUO ao New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : SHIXUAN LUO, : : Plaintiff, : : 23-cv-5878 (LJL) -v- : : AIK RENOVATION INC., STEVE NEJASMIC, and : MICHAEL RENOSIS, : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

I. Introduction Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. My name is Lewis Liman, and I will be presiding over the trial for which we are here today to select a jury. The case is a civil case entitled Luo v. AIK Renovation. I expect the trial to be completed by the end of the week. Those of you who are selected to serve on the jury would then be excused from jury duty. Those who are not selected to serve on the jury in this case will be eligible to serve on one of the other trials for which jury selection is scheduled to occur this week or next week. I’ll have more to say in a few moments about our schedule. Before we get started, I want to thank you for being here. Your presence reflects your serious commitment to your civic responsibilities. I recognize that some of you are inconvenienced by this service. Jury service, however, is one of the highest and most important duties of a citizen of the United States. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “Jury service preserves the democratic element of the law, as it guards the rights of the parties and ensures continued acceptance of the laws by all of the people. It affords ordinary citizens a valuable opportunity to participate in a process of government, an experience fostering, one hopes, a respect for law. Indeed, with the exception of voting, for most citizens the honor and privilege of jury duty is their most significant opportunity to participate in the democratic process.” Our system of justice depends on you.

In a few minutes, if you have an extraordinary personal hardship that prevents you from serving in this case, you will have an opportunity to bring that to my attention. I emphasize the word “extraordinary” because, as I said, I know that many of you have jobs or other places that you would rather be. Unfortunately, it would be too hard for us to seat any jury at all if that were enough to excuse you from service. The parties would not get a fair trial. The hardship must be extraordinary for you to be excused. So I appreciate your full cooperation. Our purpose today is to make sure that we have a jury of citizens who will decide the issues in this case both fairly and impartially, and without any bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, either side. In order to do that, I am going to ask certain questions of you—questions about your personal background, your family, your beliefs and experiences, and things of that nature.

You should understand that my questioning is not intended to pry into your lives, but to make sure that we select fair and impartial jurors, who can listen to the evidence with an open mind, and decide the issues in this case based only on the sworn testimony given in this courtroom, on whatever exhibits may be received in evidence, and on my instructions as to the law. If at any time you feel uncomfortable for any reason in answering a question in front of other jurors, you should ask to have the issued discussed at sidebar, and I will try to discuss it with you in the presence of the attorneys only. From your answers to my questions, I will be able to determine whether you should be excused “for cause”—that means, for a good reason. Your answers will also allow the parties to make informed use of their peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges give each party the right to excuse a certain number of jurors without giving any reason for doing so. My questions to you, and your answers to them, are not evidence in this case, and you should not regard them as having any bearing in this case. That said, it is very important that you

not say in open court anything about the parties in this case or about any other matter that might affect the open-mindedness and fairness of the other jurors. If there are any matters that you feel should be disclosed to me that might influence the other jurors, or any matters of a sensitive nature, you should ask to approach the bench to discuss them. If you are excused, do not consider that a reflection on you personally. This is all part of our system of justice, which is intended to provide all parties with a fair and impartial jury. You will have done your duty by your presence here today and your readiness to serve if chosen. II. Summary of the Case Before we proceed, let me give you a brief summary of the case so that you have some sense of what it is about as we go through jury selection. As I told you a moment ago, however,

nothing I say is evidence. The evidence that you will consider, if selected as a juror, will only come from the trial testimony of witnesses and from exhibits that are admitted into evidence. As I mentioned earlier, the plaintiff in the case is Shixuan Luo, who is also known as Jeff Luo or Jefferson Rolls. He is represented at trial by attorney Jing Shen Rolls of Pisgah Law PLLC. I would ask Mr. Luo and Mr. Rolls to now stand and face the jury venire. The defendants are AIK Renovation, Inc., Steve Nejasmic and Micheal Renosis. The defendants are represented at trial by Joshua Androphy of Morrison Tenenbaum PLLC. Would Mr. Nejasmic, Mr. Renosis, and Mr. Androphy now stand and face the jury venire. I will now describe the allegations in this case in order to determine whether anything about this case may make it inappropriate for any of you to serve on the jury. The Plaintiff, Shixuan Luo, was formerly employed as a project manager by AIK Renovation, which is a construction company. Steve Nejasmic is the head of AIK Renovation,

and Michael Renosis is an employee of AIK Renovation. Luo claims that he was fired by AIK Renovation because of racial and national origin discrimination, and that Nejasmic and Renosis were part of that discrimination. Defendants claim that they fired Luo because of his job performance. III. Trial Schedule Let me now tell you a little more about our schedule. I expect to complete jury selection promptly today. Trial will then begin. We will sit every weekday until trial is over.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Luo v. AIK Renovation Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Luo v. AIK Renovation Inc. (Luo v. AIK Renovation Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Gary Bush
47 F.3d 511 (Second Circuit, 1995)