According to the New York Law Journal, a New York trial judge found that a lawsuit over bedbugs could not include a claim for punitive damages because the bugs were merely a nuisance. However, the court let go forward the negligence claims of two Maryland tourists for bites they sustained during a two-night stay at the theater district’s Milford Plaza. In holding that plaintiffs could not seek punitive damages, the court had to distinguish a Judge Posner 7th Circuit opinion which had upheld a significant punitive damage award for bedbugs.

The New Jersey Supreme Court decided today in Tarr v. Bob Ciasulli’s Mack Auto Mall, Inc. that the defendant was entitled to a new trial because the plaintiff’s attorney improperly invited the jury to award punitive damages on a general deterrence theory, to “send a message to deter this particular defendant and others.” The court held that, under New Jersey’s Punitive Damages Act, a jury may aim only for deterrence of the specific defendant.

The court also held that jurors deciding punitive damages can properly consider the defendant’s financial condition both at the time of the wrongdoing and at the time of trial. In so holding, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that it cannot be subjected to punitive damages because it is now a defunct organization with no assets. Based on this holding, the plaintiff’s attorney claimed victory and predicted he would obtain a larger award of punitive damages than the $85,000 he obtained in the first trial, according to this article on Law.com.

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion is contrary to California law on both issues. In California, numerous opinions have recognized the legitimacy of a general deterrence theory. (See, e.g., Ferguson v. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1037 [“Punitive damages by definition are not intended to compensate the injured party, but rather to punish the tortfeasor whose wrongful action was intentional or malicious, and to deter him and others from similar extreme conduct”].) And California courts have repeatedly held that juries can consider the defendant’s financial condition only as of the time of trial. (See, e.g., Kelly v. Haag (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 910, 915 [“A punitive damages award is based on the defendant’s financial condition at the time of trial”].)

We’ve previously discussed the recent Holdgrafer opinion reversing a $5 million punitive damages award because it was tainted by improperly admitted evidence of defendant’s dissimilar conduct toward nonparties. Plaintiffs have filed a petition for rehearing taking scattershot aim at the appellate decision. Plaintiffs argue, among other things, that the opinion “errs in holding that a de novo standard of review applies to the trial court’s determination of similarity of conduct,” and that the Court of Appeal’s “legal standards for determining whether conduct is ‘similar’ are too narrow.”

The Court of Appeal has 30 days from the date of the opinion (i.e., until April 3) to rule on the rehearing petition. You can follow the progress on the court’s online docket.

According to the New York Law Journal, famed plaintiff’s class action lawyer Melvyn Weiss of Milberg Weiss has pleaded guilty to a racketeering charge for participating in a scheme to pay kickbacks to lead plaintiffs in shareholder suits.

David Johnson writes about the recent Texas Supreme Court opinion in Fairfield Insurance Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP which paves the way for at least some punitive damages to be insurable. Johnson contends that the opinion does not mean all punitive damages are insurable: “In Fairfield, the Court once again expressed language that would favor the enforcement of punitive damage insurance agreements where the insured was a business, but the opinion also contained language that would not have favored the enforcement of the same provisions against individual insureds. One could glean that the Court is continuing to follow its recent trends against equitable/policy arguments trumping express insurance provisions and in continuing to side with business insureds against insurers but not so much for individual insureds.” We previously blogged about this case here.

Law.com reports that a Philadelphia jury has awarded $25 million in punitive damages in a mesothelioma case. The plaintiff’s attorney says this is the first time he has seen punitive damages awarded in a Philadelphia asbestos case in over 20 years. Even in California, punitive damages are rare (though not unheard of) in asbestos cases.

The Reno Gazette Journal reports that a jury awarded damages of more than $590 million (with $375 million of that in punitive damages) to Darren and Charla Mack’s 9-year-old daughter and Charla’s estate, in the wrongful death lawsuit filed against Darren who had previously admitted stabbing Charla to death on June 12, 2006, in the garage of his townhouse. He has insisted that it was self defense, but pleaded guilty to first-degree murder on Nov. 5. He is now seeking to withdraw his guilty plea.

UPDATE (by Curt Cutting at 11:30 AM): In case you’re wondering, the punitive damages award against OJ was $25 million.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “The family of an illegal immigrant who died of penile cancer that went untreated during 11 months of detention can sue government doctors for damages, a federal judge has ruled in a decision in which he condemned the defendants’ alleged actions as deceptive and heartless. The claims in Francisco Castaneda’s lawsuit – that government medical staffers and immigration officials brushed off his complaints of severe pain and multiple lesions, told him they saw no need for surgery and finally discharged him rather than having the government pay for treatment – describe conduct that, if proved, ‘is beyond cruel and unusual,’ said U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson of Los Angeles. His ruling, issued late Tuesday, allows Castaneda’s family to sue the doctors for allegedly violating his constitutional rights and ask a jury to award punitive damages. Government lawyers argued that federal law allowed only a suit against the government, with a nonjury trial and a $250,000 limit on damages. . . . ‘The evidence that plaintiff has presented so far – through (government officials’) own records – suggests a strong case for punitive damages because it shows that (their) behavior was callous and misleading,’ the judge said.”

A federal district judge in New York has denied Viacom’s effort to seek punitive damages against Google, holding that common law punitive damages can’t be recovered under the Copyright Act. Last March, Viacom sued online video-sharing site YouTube Inc. and its parent company, Google Inc., saying the companies infringed on Viacom’s copyrights because almost 160,000 unauthorized video clips were available for viewing on YouTube.

Click here for a copy of the district court’s ruling.

There’s something that puzzles me about this story: $40 million verdict for burned heart may be largest in Snohomish County history. It reports on a Washington state verdict that includes an $8.3 million punitive damages award against a California company, Edwards Lifesciences Corp. of Irvine. What’s puzzling is that Washington law generally does not permit punitive damages, except in a few limited circumstances specifically authorized by statute. None of the circumstances would seem to apply here. The press reports about this case have not explained why punitive damages were available in this case. Perhaps the case was tried under California law.