This unpublished opinion is another example of the California Court of Appeal vacating a punitive damages award because the plaintiff failed to present meaningful evidence of the defendant’s financial condition.

The plaintiff in this case obtained a $400,000 judgment against her brother for defamation, including roughly $100,000 in punitive damages.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the punitive damages should be reversed because the record did not contain sufficient evidence of his financial condition. The Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Four) agreed, finding several deficiencies in the plaintiff’s evidence of the defendant’s finances:

1. The plaintiff presented evidence of the defendant’s income from 2015-2019, but presented no evidence of his income at the time of trial in 2023.

2. There was some evidence of the defendant’s earning potential, but no expert testimony to quantify that earning potential.

3. There was no evidence of the defendant’s liabilities, and the information about his expenses included only partial information from nine years before trial.

The Court of Appeal accordingly vacated the punitive damages award without giving the plaintiff a chance to try again. California case law dictates that result, but sometimes courts choose not to follow that rule.