I previously reported on this bill, which would authorize enhanced penalties against those who participate in sex trafficking and other related crimes involving minors. The Senate has approved the bill with minor amendments, and it has returned to the Assembly for approval of the amended version.  The bill appears likely to pass.

I previously reported on this bill, which would authorize enhanced penalties against those who participate in sex trafficking and other related crimes involving minors. The Senate has approved the bill with minor amendments, and it has returned to the Assembly for approval of the amended version.  The bill appears likely to pass.

Last week we blogged about a nuisance lawsuit in which 10 plaintiffs each won $5 million in punitive damages against a hog farm. WRAL.com reports that the trial judge, U.S. District Judge W. Earl Britt, has reduced each award to $250,000 under North Carolina’s cap, rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the cap is unconstitutional.   

Last week we blogged about a nuisance lawsuit in which 10 plaintiffs each won $5 million in punitive damages against a hog farm. WRAL.com reports that the trial judge, U.S. District Judge W. Earl Britt, has reduced each award to $250,000 under North Carolina’s cap, rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the cap is unconstitutional.

Indyweek.com reports that attorneys suing Murphy-Brown LLC, a pork producer, are preparing to challenge the North Carolina statute that limits punitive damages to three times compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater.

The plaintiffs won a verdict against Murphy-Brown last week in a nuisance case.  The 10 individual plaintiffs each won $75,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.  Under the statute, each punitive damages award must be reduced to a maximum of $325,000.  That would reduce the total judgment from $50.75 million to $3.25 million.

The plaintiffs’ legal team thinks they can avoid that reduction by challenging the statute as unconstitutional.  They have an uphill battle.  The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute back in 2004. But the plaintiffs argue that case doesn’t apply here because it involved personal injuries, rather than nuisance claims.  They argue that the right to a jury trial under the North Carolina constitution is stronger in nuisance claims, and apparently, they believe that the right to a jury trial necessarily includes a right to unlimited damages.  As silly as that sounds, similar arguments have found a receptive audience in other states.

Indyweek.com reports that attorneys suing Murphy-Brown LLC, a pork producer, are preparing to challenge the North Carolina statute that limits punitive damages to three times compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater.

The plaintiffs won a verdict against Murphy-Brown last week in a nuisance case.  The 10 individual plaintiffs each won $75,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.  Under the statute, each punitive damages award must be reduced to a maximum of $325,000.  That would reduce the total judgment from $50.75 million to $3.25 million.

The plaintiffs’ legal team thinks they can avoid that reduction by challenging the statute as unconstitutional.  They have an uphill battle.  The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute back in 2004. But the plaintiffs argue that case doesn’t apply here because it involved personal injuries, rather than nuisance claims.  They argue that the right to a jury trial under the North Carolina constitution is stronger in nuisance claims, and apparently, they believe that the right to a jury trial necessarily includes a right to unlimited damages.  As silly as that sounds, similar arguments have found a receptive audience in other states.

We previously reported that the Legislature approved Assembly Bill 859, which would have lowered the burden of proof for plaintiffs seeking punitive damages in certain Elder Abuse cases, but only after a finding that the defendant had engaged in spoliation of evidence.  Governor Brown vetoed that bill this week.  His veto statement explains that the bill is unnecessary because existing law already provides remedies for spoliation of evidence. 

Although California juries are known to hand out hefty punitive damages, California law actually contains quite a few safeguards against arbitrary and irrational punitive damages awards. That’s why many of the headline-grabbing awards are later reduced or vacated by the courts.  Perhaps, however, our Legislature is starting to chip away at those safeguards.

Both houses of the Legislature have voted to approve AB-859, which now heads to the governor for signature.  The bill lowers the burden of proof for punitive damages claims in a limited category cases: Elder Abuse claims against skilled nursing facilities that have engaged in spoliation of evidence.  If the governor signs the bill, punitive damages in such cases will now be governed by the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof, instead of the more stringent “clear and convincing evidence” standard.

On its face, this modification may seem insignificant.  It only applies to skilled nursing facilities, only in Elder Abuse cases, and only where spoliation of evidence has been established.  How many cases like that can there be?  Some might call this bill a nothingburger.  On the other hand, any step towards eroding the safeguards in California punitive damages law is cause for alarm for all defendants.

Capital & Main reports that SB 66 is set for a floor vote on Wednesday.  As we previously reported, SB 66 is the latest proposal to prevent California taxpayers from taking deductions for payments of punitive damages.

Similar proposals have failed in the past, but the Capital & Main article notes that the political climate is different now in California: “Things that have died multiple times are passing,” according to Ken DeVore, the legislative director of the California chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).