A story in today’s Hollywood Reporter describes 21st Century Fox’s efforts to avoid a $128 million punitive damages award imposed by an arbitrator. As we described in this earlier post, an arbitrator found that Fox underpaid royalties to the stars and creator of the show Bones Fox is now challenging the punitive damages award in superior court, arguing that the arbitration agreement expressly prohibits “punitive relief.”
-
“After Stunning ‘Bones’ Decision, Fox Aims to Wipe Out $128M in Punitive Damages”
A story in today’s Hollywood Reporter describes 21st Century Fox’s efforts to avoid a $128 million punitive damages award imposed by an arbitrator. As we described in this earlier post, an arbitrator found that Fox underpaid royalties to the stars and creator of the show Bones Fox is now challenging the punitive damages award in superior court, arguing that the arbitration agreement expressly prohibits “punitive relief.”
-
Court of Appeal publishes opinion that vacated punitive damages due to lack of financial evidence (F&M Trust v. Vanetik)
Back in February we reported on an unpublished decision that vacated $3.25 million in punitive damages because the plaintiff failed to present meaningful evidence of the defendants’ financial condition.
The Court of Appeal has now ordered that discussion published in the official reports. See the order at the bottom of the court’s online docket. Other parts of the opinion remain unpublished.
-
“Jackpot Junk Science”
Over the weekend, The Wall Street Journal published this opinion piece about last week’s verdict awarding $5 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages to a man who claims Monsanto’s weedkiller Roundup caused him to develop cancer.
Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy represents Monsanto on appeal in another case involving Roundup.
-
Florida jury awards $16 million punitive damages verdict against RJ Reynolds
Courtroom View Network reports that yesterday a Florida awarded a smoker’s family $300,000 in compensatory damages and $16 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested an award of $10 million, but the jury apparently thought that wasn’t enough.
-
Court of Appeal publishes opinion that vacated punitive damages due to lack of financial evidence (F&M Trust v. Vanetik)
Back in February we reported on an unpublished decision that vacated $3.25 million in punitive damages because the plaintiff failed to present meaningful evidence of the defendants’ financial condition.
The Court of Appeal has now ordered that discussion published in the official reports. See the order at the bottom of the court’s online docket. Other parts of the opinion remain unpublished.
-
“Jackpot Junk Science”
Over the weekend, The Wall Street Journal published this opinion piece about last week’s verdict awarding $5 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages to a man who claims Monsanto’s weedkiller Roundup caused him to develop cancer.
Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy represents Monsanto on appeal in another case involving Roundup.
-
Florida jury awards $16 million punitive damages verdict against RJ Reynolds
Courtroom View Network reports that yesterday a Florida awarded a smoker’s family $300,000 in compensatory damages and $16 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested an award of $10 million, but the jury apparently thought that wasn’t enough.
-
Court of Appeal affirms punitive damages award, rejects defendant’s complaint about alternate juror participating in punitive damages phase (Nolasco v. Scantibodies)
This unpublished opinion addresses an issue we haven’t seen in a while.
A jury awarded a total of $932,000 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages to two plaintiffs who claimed their employer retailed against them after they disclosed information to the FDA about the company’s practices. (The defendant produces medical diagnostic tests and components.)
The trial was bifurcated under Civil Code section 3295: in phase one the jury decided the issue of liability and whether the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud; in phase two the jury decided the amount of punitive damages.
On appeal, the defendant argued it was entitled to a new trial on punitive damages because the trial court seated an alternate juror during the second phase of trial. The defendant argued that the use of the alternate juror violated section 3295’s requirement that both phases of trial be decided by the “same trier of fact.”
The Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division One) rejected that argument, citing an earlier decision in Rivera v. Sassoon. Rivera held that the use of an alternative juror in phase two does not violate the “same trier of fact” rule because alternate jurors hear the same evidence and are subject to the same admonitions as the regular jurors.
That reasoning is a little unsatisfying, because whatever instructions and evidence the alternate jurors may hear, they do not actually get to vote in phase one. So when an alternative juror is seated for phase two, the two phases of trial are not literally being decided by the same trier of fact. No other cases have followed Rivera‘s reasoning on this issue, but as the Court of Appeal pointed out, no cases have challenged that reasoning either. So Rivera remains good law, at least for now.
-
Court of Appeal affirms punitive damages award, rejects defendant’s complaint about alternate juror participating in punitive damages phase (Nolasco v. Scantibodies)
This unpublished opinion addresses an issue we haven’t seen in a while.
A jury awarded a total of $932,000 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages to two plaintiffs who claimed their employer retailed against them after they disclosed information to the FDA about the company’s practices. (The defendant produces medical diagnostic tests and components.)
The trial was bifurcated under Civil Code section 3295: in phase one the jury decided the issue of liability and whether the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud; in phase two the jury decided the amount of punitive damages.
On appeal, the defendant argued it was entitled to a new trial on punitive damages because the trial court seated an alternate juror during the second phase of trial. The defendant argued that the use of the alternate juror violated section 3295’s requirement that both phases of trial be decided by the “same trier of fact.”
The Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division One) rejected that argument, citing an earlier decision in Rivera v. Sassoon. Rivera held that the use of an alternative juror in phase two does not violate the “same trier of fact” rule because alternate jurors hear the same evidence and are subject to the same admonitions as the regular jurors.
That reasoning is a little unsatisfying, because whatever instructions and evidence the alternate jurors may hear, they do not actually get to vote in phase one. So when an alternative juror is seated for phase two, the two phases of trial are not literally being decided by the same trier of fact. No other cases have followed Rivera‘s reasoning on this issue, but as the Court of Appeal pointed out, no cases have challenged that reasoning either. So Rivera remains good law, at least for now.