Today’s edition of the Daily Journal (subscription required) contains an article about a “record-setting” verdict awarding $21.7 million, including $16.5 million in punitive damages, in an employment discrimination case in L.A. superior court (Rodgriguez v. Valley Vista Services Inc.)  Per the article, the plaintiff claimed she was fired because of a mental disability, but the employer said she was fired because she failed to report to work or call in for three days. 

Last December, a Los Angeles jury awarded $2.3 million in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages against Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling.  The plaintiff, a tenant in one of Sterling’s apartment buildings, claimed she lost most her personal belongings due to a fire in the building.  She also claimed that she suffered emotional distress and that her acting career was derailed by the fire.  By our count, the punitive damages award was the 6th largest in California in 2012.

Today, Judge William McLaughlin issued a 21-page minute order finding that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support her cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress damages.  Judge McLaughlin also concluded that the punitive damages were excessive.  Ultimately, he ordered a complete new trial on all issues, because he could not determine the extent to which the unsupported emotional distress claim affected the jury’s damages award. 

Full disclosure: Horvitz & Levy represented Sterling in connection with the posttrial motions.

Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California has rejected Apple’s bid for punitive damages in its patent lawsuit against Samsung that resulted in a $1 billion jury award last year.  By statute, a court can award punitive damages up to three times the amount of the actual damages if the plaintiff presents clear and convincing evidence of willful patent infringement.  Judge Koh, however, granted Samsung’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on that issue, finding that that Samsung’s infringement of Apple’s patents was not objectively willful. 

Hat tip: IP Nav blog and Wired

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.