This unpublished opinion reverses a punitive damages award because the plaintiff failed to present meaningful evidence of the defendant’s financial condition at the time of trial.  That holding is nothing unusual.  What is unusual, however, is that the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) gave the plaintiff a do-over on that element of proof.

Under longstanding California law, plaintiffs who fail to carry their burden of proof are not entitled to a “second bite at the apple.”  (Kelly v. Haag (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 910, 919-920; see also these four unpublished opinions.)  If the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to prove the defendant’s financial condition and failed to do so, there is no reason to give the plaintiff a second chance.  The Court of Appeal should reverse the punitive damages award and direct the trial court to enter judgment for the defendant on that issue.

In this case, however, the Court of Appeal sends the case back to the trial court to allow the plaintiff to conduct further discovery in order to present the evidence she neglected to present the first time around.  The opinion does not explain why the court departed from the usual rule, which raises the question whether anyone briefed this issue, and whether the Court of Appeal was made aware of the usual rule.  The defendant may want to consider a petition for rehearing.