The Illinois Supreme Court has granted review to decide whether the Cook County Commission on Human Rights is authorized to award punitive damages.  The intermediate appellate court said no, in a case called Crittenden v. Cook County Commission on Human Rights.  Kirk Jenkins of the appellate strategist has the full story.   

We’ve mentioned this case (Naugle v. Philip Morris) a few times before.  Back in November 2009, a jury awarded $300 million, including $244 in punitive damages.  During the posttrial phase, the trial court reduced the total damages to less than 40 million.  And now the Florida Court of Appeal has ruled that the trial judge should have granted a new trial on damages instead of ordering a remittitur.  The appellate court reasoned that Philip Morris was entitled to a new trial based on the trial court’s finding that the jury was motivated by passions, anger, and sympathy.

The California Supreme Court made a similar holding in Schelbauer v. Butler Manufacturing Co. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 442, 454, when it expressly disapproved the use of a remittitur as a means to cure legal error, holding that use of remittitur is “confined to cases in which an excessive damage award [is] the only error in the jury’s verdict.”

Last year Wyeth asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether a remittitur can be used to cure a verdict tainted by passion and prejudice, but Wyeth’s petition was denied.

This case is part of the continuing fallout from the Florida Supreme Court’s Engle decision reversing a $145 billion verdict in a class action against five tobacco defendants. Point of Law has a post summarizing the saga.

The Associated Press reports that a Los Angeles jury has awarded $777,000 in compensatory damages and $7.7 million in punitive damages in an employment discrimination suit brought by a former model on “The Price is Right.”  The plaintiff, Brandi Cochran, claims she was not permitted to return to work on the show after she took maternity leave.  The defendant, Freemantle Media, contends the trial judge erroneously excluded evidence that over 40 percent of the models on the show have been pregnant.

Given the size of the compensatory damages and the high punitive-to-compensatory ratio, this award is not likely to survive through posttrial motions and an appeal.  Our readers are invited to guess the final amount of the punitive damages award, without going over. 

Today’s Daily Journal (subscription required) reports that a federal court jury here in Los Angeles has awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $3.6 million in punitive damages against a board game maker who allegedly infringed upon the plaintiff’s trademarked phrase “Would You Rather . . .?”  This litigation has been going on for seven years and has already been up to the Ninth Circuit once.  It’s going up again, according to the statements of defense counsel quoted in the article.

Last month we reported on a defense contractor’s failed attempt to have Iraqi law applied to a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the contractor knowingly exposed members of the Oregon National Guard to hexavalent chromium while they were serving in Iraq.  The Seattle Times reports that a jury in that case has awarded a total of $75 million in punitive damages.  The verdict requires Halliburton spin-off Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) to pay $850,000 in compensatory damages and $6.25 million in punitive damages to each of the 12 plaintiffs. This one is almost certainly headed to the Ninth Circuit.

2012 has been a relatively quiet year for blockbuster punitive damages awards in California.  But that trend could change in January 2013 according to this report in the San Mateo County Times.  Judge Steven Dylina of the San Mateo County Superior Court has tentatively denied PG&E’s request to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages in a lawsuit arising out of the 2010 San Bruno explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes.  If Dylina sticks to his tentative ruling, a jury could be asked to award punitive damages in a case involving 350 plaintiffs and a very large amount of compensatory damages.

The Oregonian reports that United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak has denied a defendant’s request to apply Iraqi law to a claim for punitive damages based on conduct that occurred in Iraq. 

The plaintiffs are Oregon National Guard soldiers who accuse defense contractor KBR, Inc. of knowingly exposing them to hexavelent chromium (which you may remember from such films as Erin Brockovich).  KPR argued that Iraqi law should apply because the alleged misconduct took place in Iraq, not Oregon where the case is pending. Iraqi law, like the law of most countries in the world, prohibits punitive damages.   

The Globe and Mail of Toronto reports that U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York has awarded $6 billion in punitive damages against Iran, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban, to punish the defendants for their involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

According to the story, the court blamed Iran partly because the hijackers passed through Iran on their way to the U.S.  I’m not quite sure how that supports liability against Iran, but it hardly matters.  As the reporter observed, the award is largely symbolic and “unlikely to be recovered.” It’s no more collectible than any of the other gigantic punitive damages awards that the federal courts have issued against Iran in recent years.

Related posts:

Federal judge piles on punitive damages against Iran and Sudan: $1.67B and $236M

Federal Judge Awards $300 Million In Punitive Damages Against Iran

Federal judge awards $61.3 million in punitive damages against Iran

$25 Million in Punitive Damages Against Cuba

Miami Judge Awards $393 Million in Punitive Damages Against Cuba

The Associated Press is reporting that, this afternoon, a Los Angeles jury awarded $20 million in punitive damages to casino mogul Steve Wynn in his lawsuit against “Girls Gone Wild” founder Joe Francis.  That’s on top of the $20 million the jury awarded yesterday for compensatory damages.  The jury found that Francis defamed Wynn by falsely stating that Wynn had threatened to kill him.

The AP story quotes Francis’ attorney as saying that the jury should not have awarded punitive damages because Wynn failed to produce any evidence of Francis’ financial condition.  As readers of this blog know, California appellate courts often reverse punitive damages awards on that basis.  But that article also states that “Francis did not provide financial records to Wynn’s attorney.”  That suggests Wynn may be arguing that Francis waived any right to complain about the lack of financial condition evidence because Francis failed to comply with a court order to produce his financial records.  I’m sure we’ll be hearing a lot more about this one.

The American Bar Association is working on its annual list of the top 100 legal blogs, and invites readers to nominate their favorite blogs by filling out a short online form.  If any of our readers think Cal Punitives should be on that list, we’d love to be nominated.  And please consider nominating our sister blog, At the Lectern, as well.