California Punitive Damages – Page 210 – News and commentary on punitive damages litigation in California and nationwide.

September 11, 2008

W. Va. Supreme Court Candidates Support Appellate Review of Punitive Damages

The Charleston Gazette contains this article about candidates running for election to the West Virginia Supreme Court: “Two Supreme Court Hopefuls Support Automatic Review of Punitive Damages.”

Currently, defendants in West Virginia have no right to appellate review of punitive damages awards. All they can do is seek discretionary review by the West Virginia Supreme Court. As we observed in a prior post, the absence of a right to appeal raises due process questions.

The issue has been in the spotlight recently because the West Virginia Supreme Court declined to review a case involving $270 million in punitive damages and the Governor of West Virginia filed a controversial amicus brief asking the court to review a $196.2 million punitive damages award against DuPont.
September 11, 2008

Review Dismissed in Harvey v. Sybase

The California Supreme Court today dismissed review in Harvey v. Sybase, a case presenting a significant unresolved issue affecting California punitive damages litigation. As the Supreme Court’s online docket indicates, the parties settled the case and stipulated to a dismissal.

The issue presented in Harvey was whether the clear and convincing evidence standard, which governs punitive damages determinations in California, applies only in the trial court, or does it also apply on appeal? In other words, should the Court of Appeal take that standard into account when it reviews the record to determine whether substantial evidence supports a jury’s determination that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud (the California prerequisites for imposing punitive damages)?

This issue arises whenever a defendant argues on appeal that the facts of a particular case don’t warrant punitive damages. Unfortunately, California courts are all over the map on this issue, including the California Supreme Court, as we observed in a prior post about Harvey. Fortunately, because the issues arises so often, the Supreme Court should not have to wait very long to find another vehicle for deciding this issue.
September 8, 2008

U.S. Supreme Court Schedules Oral Argument in Williams III for December 3

According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s monthly argument calendar for the month of December, 2008, the Court will hear oral arguments in Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams III) on December 3, 2008.

To recap, the issued presented in Williams III is:

Whether, after this Court has adjudicated the merits of a party’s federal claim and remanded the case to state court with instructions to “apply” the correct constitutional standard, the state court may interpose–for the first time in the litigation–a state-law procedural bar that is neither firmly established nor regularly followed.

See our prior post for links to the opening brief on the merits and the various amicus briefs in support of the petitioner.

Hat tip: SCOTUSblog.
September 4, 2008

Commentary on Prof. Dan Markel’s Punitive Damages Theory

Professor Michael OHear has posted this commentary on the Marquette University Law School law blog about a presentation made by Florida State law professor Dan Markel. Prof. Markel presented his paper “How Should Punitive Damages Work?” to kick off a speaker series at Marquette. Prof. O’Hear questions whether Prof. Markel’s proposals are workable in the real world.
September 4, 2008

Punitive Damages Now Available in Thailand

Thailand News Today reports (in a blog post authored by Chaiporn Supvoranid, a partner at Baker & McKenzie), that Thailand has passed a law known as the “Consumer Cases Act” which “introduces several new concepts into the Thai legal system such as punitive damages . . . .” This seems to cut against the trend reported elsewhere that foreign jurisdictions are generally hostile to U.S.-style punitive damages.
September 4, 2008

San Diego Jury Awards $40 Million in Punitive Damages for Crash of Marine Helicopter

According to the San Diego Union Tribune, a jury today awarded $15.2 million in compensatory damages and $40.4 million in punitive damages against San Diego Gas & Electric Company in a case involving a helicopter crash that killed four Marines.

In the 2004 crash, the Marines’ UH-1N (Huey) helicopter collided with a 130-foot utility tower located on Camp Pendleton. The plaintiffs claimed that SDG&E was negligent for not installing safety lights on the tower. SDG&E says the tower had been on the base for 25 years and they would have installed lights if the Marine Corps had asked. They contend the crash was the result of errors by the crew and they plan to appeal.
September 3, 2008

Off Topic: “Motion to Strike Hunger”

Please pardon this interruption from our usual punitive damages programming, but it’s for a good cause. You may not have heard, but September 2008 is national Hunger Action Month. From September 15 to September 30, our firm (Horvitz & Levy) is sponsoring a “Motion to Strike Hunger” food drive to benefit the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, which provides food to over one million people in Los Angeles County who are struggling to feed their families.

We invite our Los Angeles area readers to join us by doing any of the following :

(1) signing up to hold a food drive at your firm or business from September 15 to September 30 (it’s very easy – – just sign up here and the food bank will deliver collection barrels and pick up the donations at the end of the food drive)

(2) scheduling your own volunteer day

and/or (3) making a cash donation.

The firm that donates the most pounds of food per capita will earn the title of “Most Generous Movant.” (This is an appeal to litigators who enjoy the thrill of competition but, of course, the good feeling of giving is its own reward.)
September 3, 2008

Wal-Mart Settles With Adidas In Case With Potential for Major Punitive Damages

According to Bloomberg.com, Adidas and Wal-Mart have settled a lawsuit in which Adidas contended that Wal-Mart infringed on Adidas’s trademark by copying its distinctive three-stripe sneaker design. As we previously reported, Adidas had boldly predicted it would obtain a huge punitive damages award in this case. The prediction wasn’t all that far fetched, since Adidas recently won $137 million in punitive damages in the same court in a nearly identical lawsuit against Collective Brands, the parent company of Payless Shoes.

Both parties may have been motivated to settle in part because the state of Oregon (where this case was pending) claims 60 percent of all punitive damages awards. Indeed, Oregon stepped forward to claim its share of Adidas’ big win against Payless. As previous experience has shown, if an Oregon plaintiff wins a big punitive damages award, the parties will have difficulty settling without giving the state its cut. As a result, parties in Oregon (and other states with similar statutes) have an added incentive to settle before trial if they think a major punitive damages award is possible.
September 2, 2008

The First Batch of Merits Briefs in Williams III Available Online

Philip Morris and its amici have filed the first batch of briefs on the merits in Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams III). (Click here for our prior post about the grant of certiorari in Williams III. The post contains the issued presented.)

Links (via the ABA):

Philip Morris’s opening brief on the merits.

Amicus brief of Pacific Legal Foundation in support of petitioner.

Amicus brief of National Association of Manufacturers in support of petitioner.

Amicus brief of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in support of petitioner.

Amicus brief of Associated Oregon Industries in support of petitioner.

Amicus brief of Washington Legal Foundation in support of petitioner.

Amicus brief of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in support of neither party.

Note on terminology: I have been referring to this case as Williams II, even though it’s actually the third time the case has been before the Supreme Court. The first time around the Court simply GVR’d the case without an opinion. The second time around the Court issued an opinion. To me, it makes sense to call the first opinion Williams I and call this case Williams II, since it will generate the second Supreme Court opinion. But several of the briefs linked above refer to the first Supreme Court opinion as Williams II and this case as Williams III. To minimize confusion, I’ll adopt that same terminology from now on.
August 30, 2008

Video Interview With Gov. Palin on Exxon Valdez Decision

Following up on the posts below, here’s a video interview with Governor Palin about the Supreme Court’s opinion reducing the punitive damages in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker.