Insurance Journal reports that the plaintiffs’ attorneys requested a whopping $1 billion in punitive damages in the latest lawsuit over the weedkiller Roundup.
Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy represents Monsanto on appeal in another Roundup case.
-
Plaintiffs in latest Roundup lawsuit ask for $1B in punitive damages
Insurance Journal reports that the plaintiffs’ attorneys requested a whopping $1 billion in punitive damages in the latest lawsuit over the weedkiller Roundup.
Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy represents Monsanto on appeal in another Roundup case.
-
Judge rejects “Bones” punitive damages award
The Associated Press reports that L.A. Superior Court judge Richard Rico has denied the plaintiffs’ petition to confirm an arbitrator’s award of $128 million in punitive damages against 21st Century Fox. Judge Rico confirmed the arbitrator’s award of $50 million in compensatory damages, but refused to confirm the punitive damages award, apparently on the ground that the plaintiffs waived their right to seek punitive damages.
Related posts:
“After Stunning ‘Bones’ Decision, Fox Aims to Wipe Out $128M in Punitive Damages”
Arbitrator awards $128 million in punitive damages against 21st Century Fox
-
Judge rejects “Bones” punitive damages award
The Associated Press reports that L.A. Superior Court judge Richard Rico has denied the plaintiffs’ petition to confirm an arbitrator’s award of $128 million in punitive damages against 21st Century Fox. Judge Rico confirmed the arbitrator’s award of $50 million in compensatory damages, but refused to confirm the punitive damages award, apparently on the ground that the plaintiffs waived their right to seek punitive damages.
Related posts:
“After Stunning ‘Bones’ Decision, Fox Aims to Wipe Out $128M in Punitive Damages”
Arbitrator awards $128 million in punitive damages against 21st Century Fox
-
Supreme Court of California grants review to resolve split over application of “clear and convincing” evidence standard
As reported on our sister blog, At the Lectern, the Supreme Court has finally agreed to settle a long-running split of authority about how the clear and convincing evidence standard applies, if at all, on appeal.
The issue has great importance for punitive damages cases because, as readers of this blog are
aware, California plaintiffs must prove all the prerequisites for a punitive damages award by clear and convincing evidence. (See Civil Code section 3294.)As we have discussed in the past, our appellate courts do not agree about whether they should take the heightened standard of proof into account when reviewing the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ evidence. Many courts say yes, but others have said no.
The Supreme Court has furthered the confusion by seeming to take both sides of the debate. (Compare Crail v. Blakely [holding that clear and convincing standard was adopted only “for the edification and guidance of the trial court”] with In re Angelia P. [holding that the clear and convincing evidence standard is incorporated into the substantial evidence standard on appeal].)
The Supreme Court actually granted review to address this issue over a decade ago. But the parties settled that case and the issue became moot. In the years since, many other petitions raised the issue, but the Supreme Court consistently denied them. Now, finally, in Conservatorship of O.B., the Supreme Court has agreed to take the issue up again. With any luck, the parties to that case will not reach a settlement.
-
Supreme Court of California grants review to resolve split over application of “clear and convincing” evidence standard
As reported on our sister blog, At the Lectern, the Supreme Court has finally agreed to settle a long-running split of authority about how the clear and convincing evidence standard applies, if at all, on appeal.
The issue has great importance for punitive damages cases because, as readers of this blog are
aware, California plaintiffs must prove all the prerequisites for a punitive damages award by clear and convincing evidence. (See Civil Code section 3294.)As we have discussed in the past, our appellate courts do not agree about whether they should take the heightened standard of proof into account when reviewing the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ evidence. Many courts say yes, but others have said no.
The Supreme Court has furthered the confusion by seeming to take both sides of the debate. (Compare Crail v. Blakely [holding that clear and convincing standard was adopted only “for the edification and guidance of the trial court”] with In re Angelia P. [holding that the clear and convincing evidence standard is incorporated into the substantial evidence standard on appeal].)
The Supreme Court actually granted review to address this issue over a decade ago. But the parties settled that case and the issue became moot. In the years since, many other petitions raised the issue, but the Supreme Court consistently denied them. Now, finally, in Conservatorship of O.B., the Supreme Court has agreed to take the issue up again. With any luck, the parties to that case will not reach a settlement.
-
Los Angeles jury awards $8 million in punitive damages against FilmOn.Tv founder Alki David
Per this story in the Hollywood Reporter, a jury in Los Angeles last week awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages to a woman who alleged that billionaire Alki David subjected her to sexual harassment and discrimination.
-
Court of Appeal reduces compensatory damages by $1.7M but affirms punitive damages (Cardoza v. Reed)
This unpublished opinion addresses an unsettled question of California punitive damages law that we have written about a few times. The question is what a reviewing court should do with a punitive damages award when the court significantly reduces the compensatory damages on appeal. Should the reviewing court automatically order a retrial on the issue of punitive damages, so that a jury can determine what punishment is appropriate for the actual harm caused?
In our view, the answer to that question should be yes. Jurors are routinely instructed to award an amount of punitive damages that bears a reasonable relationship to the plaintiff’s actual harm. And courts routinely presume that jurors follow their instructions. So if a jury imposes punitive damages based on the understanding that the plaintiff suffered $5 million in compensatory damages, but that understanding turns out to be false, and the Court of Appeal determines that the plaintiff really suffered only $2 million in compensatory damages, then the defendant is entitled to have a jury decide what punishment is appropriate for causing that harm.
California courts used to follow that approach, but it recent years California appellate courts are increasingly reluctant to order a new trial under these circumstances. Instead, they will order a new trial only if they determine that the jury’s punitive damages award is unconstitutionally excessive when compared to the now-reduced compensatory damages award.
That’s the approach that the Court of Appeal (First District, Division Four) took in this case. It shaved $1.7 million off the jury’s compensatory damages award, but did not order a new trial on punitive damages. Instead, the Court of Appeal affirmed the punitive damages award after concluding that the ratio between the punitive damages and the compensatory damages (as reduced) did not violate due process. In the process, the Court of Appeal deprived the defendant of its right to have a jury decide the appropriate amount of punishment for the harm actually caused.
Perhaps someday the California Supreme Court will sort this out. Until then, we will probably continued to see more unpublished opinions like this one.
-
Los Angeles jury awards $8 million in punitive damages against FilmOn.Tv founder Alki David
Per this story in the Hollywood Reporter, a jury in Los Angeles last week awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages to a woman who alleged that billionaire Alki David subjected her to sexual harassment and discrimination.
-
Court of Appeal reduces compensatory damages by $1.7M but affirms punitive damages (Cardoza v. Reed)
This unpublished opinion addresses an unsettled question of California punitive damages law that we have written about a few times. The question is what a reviewing court should do with a punitive damages award when the court significantly reduces the compensatory damages on appeal. Should the reviewing court automatically order a retrial on the issue of punitive damages, so that a jury can determine what punishment is appropriate for the actual harm caused?
In our view, the answer to that question should be yes. Jurors are routinely instructed to award an amount of punitive damages that bears a reasonable relationship to the plaintiff’s actual harm. And courts routinely presume that jurors follow their instructions. So if a jury imposes punitive damages based on the understanding that the plaintiff suffered $5 million in compensatory damages, but that understanding turns out to be false, and the Court of Appeal determines that the plaintiff really suffered only $2 million in compensatory damages, then the defendant is entitled to have a jury decide what punishment is appropriate for causing that harm.
California courts used to follow that approach, but it recent years California appellate courts are increasingly reluctant to order a new trial under these circumstances. Instead, they will order a new trial only if they determine that the jury’s punitive damages award is unconstitutionally excessive when compared to the now-reduced compensatory damages award.
That’s the approach that the Court of Appeal (First District, Division Four) took in this case. It shaved $1.7 million off the jury’s compensatory damages award, but did not order a new trial on punitive damages. Instead, the Court of Appeal affirmed the punitive damages award after concluding that the ratio between the punitive damages and the compensatory damages (as reduced) did not violate due process. In the process, the Court of Appeal deprived the defendant of its right to have a jury decide the appropriate amount of punishment for the harm actually caused.
Perhaps someday the California Supreme Court will sort this out. Until then, we will probably continued to see more unpublished opinions like this one.