California Punitives by Horvitz & Levy

  • California Supreme Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Petition for Review in Holdgrafer v. Unocal

    The California Supreme Court has denied the plaintiffs’ petition for review in Holdgrafer v. Unocal. (This is the case in which the Court of Appeal reversed a $5 million punitive damages award and ordered a retrial on punitive damages. See our prior posts on Holdgrafer here.)

    Justices Werdegar and Corrigan were absent and did not participate. See the court’s online docket.

    Holdgrafer was one of three published California opinions issued this year interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 opinion in Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams II). The California Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petitions for review in the first two (Holdgrafer and Bullock v. Philip Morris) but has not yet ruled on the defendant’s petition for review in the third case (Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co.).

  • Sen. Murkowski Pushes Bill to Give Tax Break on Exxon Valdez Punitive Damages Award

    The Anchorage Daily News reports that Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is trying to push a bill through Congress to give tax breaks to the plaintiffs in the Exxon Valdez case, should they receive a windfall punitive damages award. She doesn’t have much time, as the Supreme Court is expected to decide the case within the next week. And if our predictions about the likely outcome of the case prove correct, the windfall won’t be nearly as large as the $2.5 billion approved by the Ninth Circuit.

  • In Infringement Suit Against Wal-Mart, Adidas Predicts it Will Top the $137 Million Punitive Damages Verdict That It Won Against Payless

    We previously blogged about Adidas’s successful trademark infringement suit against Collective Brands (owner of Payless Shoes), in which Adidas won a verdict of nearly $305 million, including $137 in punitive damages.

    Now Bloomberg.com is reporting that Adidas is pursuing a similar claim against Wal-Mart. Adidas predicts that the punitive damages award against Wal-Mart will exceed the award against Payless, because the jury won’t take kindly to the fact that Wal-Mart repeatedly promised not to mimic Adidas’ designs but did so anyway.

    The case against Wal-Mart is pending in the same courthouse where the Payless case was decided. Presumably, if Adidas wins, Oregon will once again come calling for its 60 percent share of the punitive damages.

  • Ford Files Reply in Support of Petition for Review in Buell-Wilson

    Ford has filed a reply in support of its petition for review to the California Supreme Court in Buell-Wilson v. Ford. That’s the case in which the California Court of Appeal reaffirmed a $55 million punitive damages award even after the US Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeal’s prior opinion affirming the same award and remanding the case for reconsideration in light of Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams II).

    You can view our prior posts on Buell-Wilson here. You can also read Ford’s petition for review, Buell-Wilson’s answer to the petition, and our amicus letter on behalf of the American Chemistry Council.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling on the petition is due by June 27. The court holds its case conferences on Wednesdays, so we can expect the court to issue a ruling on June 18th or June 25th. You can track the status of the case on the court’s online docket.

  • California Supreme Court Extends Time to Grant Review in Holdgrafer v. Unocal

    The California Supreme Court has given itself an additional 30 days to decide whether to grant review in Holdgrafer v. Unocal. (See the order posted on the court’s online docket.)

    This is the case in which the California Court of Appeal reversed a $5 million punitive damages award and ordered a retrial on punitive damages because the plaintiffs improperly presented the jury with evidence of Unocal’s dissimilar conduct towards nonparties, in violation of State Farm v. Campbell. You can view our prior posts on Holdgrafer (in which we represent Unocal) here.

  • Louisiana Law Review Article: “Punitive Damages: A European Perspective”

    The Spring 2008 edition of the Louisiana Law Review contains an article by Helmut Koziol, a retired law professor of the University of Vienna, director of the Research Unit for European Tort Law under the Austrian Academy of Sciences, and Managing Director of the European Centre of Tort and Insurance Law. The article, entitled “Punitive Damages: A European Perspective,” is an extend version of a lecture at Louisiana State University. No link is available but the citation is 68 La. L. Rev. 741.
    Professor Koziol’s article explores some of the reasons why the American system of punitive damages “cause[s] continental Europeans to shake their heads.” (We previously linked to an Adam Liptak article in the New York Times regarding foreign attitudes towards American punitive damages awards.) First, Professor Koziol says that punitive damages are often awarded to redress public outrage at conduct that damages society, but they are awarded to an individual who has neither suffered damage to that amount, nor has a claim for unjust enrichment against the defendant. “Even if there are very strong arguments for imposing a sanction on the defendant, these arguments alone cannot justify awarding the plaintiff an advantage when he has suffered no corresponding damage and has no unjust enrichment claim against the defendant.”

    Koziol also states that deterrence, one of the two goals of punitive damages (the other being punishment) can be reached only imperfectly through punitive damages. To acheive optimal deterrence, defendants would have to be subject to punishment for attempted misconduct, and not only to the occurrence of damage. But that would be contrary to other settled principles of private tort law. Koziol also points out that imposing punishment through tort law is contrary to the separation of criminal law and private law, “which is thought to be an achievement of modern legal culture.”

    Koziol concludes with the assertion that the American legal system should strive to acheive punishment and deterrence not through private tort law but through the development of criminal and administrative procedures. Under this approach, all fundamental principles of criminal law would be observed, including the principle that the punishment should be laid down in the law. In response to the criticism that prosecutors and criminal courts would be overwhelmed, he says, “I am no expert in this field, but I think that this problem could be reduced by a system of private prosecution. Granted, the suggested approach may lead to criminal courts being overburdened by a flood of cases, but the adjudication of criminal cases is the job of criminal courts, and a failure to do this would result in the civil courts being overloaded and civil rules being manipulated to accommodate the aims of criminal law.”

  • Legal Themed Dinner Plates: The Punitive Damages Collection

    No, I’m not kidding. Jose Klein, a Harvard law student who makes decorative dinner plates in his spare time, is selling a set of plates commemorating six famous punitive damages decisions:

    Day v. Woodworth (the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1851 decision validating the concept of punitive damages in a trespass action)

    Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (the Ford Pinto case, which is near and dear to our hearts not just because its a California decision, but because Horvitz & Levy founding partner Ellis Horvitz represented the plaintiff on appeal)

    BMW v. Gore (who knew that Dr. Ira Gore’s repainted BMW would lead to the recognition of constitutional restrictions on the amount of punitive damages?)

    Kemezy v. Peters (Judge Posner’s rejection of the California rule that requires plaintiffs to present evidence of the defendant’s net worth in order to obtain punitive damages)

    Romo v. Ford Motor Co. (another California punitive damages case involving Ford, 22 years after Grimshaw; instead of representing the plaintiffs, this time our firm represented amici for the defense in the California Court of Appeal, the Cal. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court)

    Philip Morris v. Williams (the ongoing saga of an Oregon punitive damages award that made its way back onto the U.S. Supreme Court docket just this week)

    You can collect all six punitive damages plates (part of the “Learned Handmade Plates” line) for the low low price of $100.00. Act now while supplies last!

    Hat tip: Above the Law.

  • “Punishment Defanged: How the United States Supreme Court Has Undermined the Legitimacy and Effectiveness of Punitive Damages”

    Heather R. Klaassen, a law student at Washburn University School of Law, has written this Comment on Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams II) for the Washburn Law Journal: “Punishment Defanged: How the United States Supreme Court Has Undermined the Legitimacy and Effectiveness of Punitive Damages.” (No link is available but the citation is 47 Washburn L.J. 551.)

    The comment blasts the U.S. Supreme Court’s punitive damages decisions as misguided, and calls on the Court to abandon this line of caselaw entirely. Klaassen says the Court has undermined the traditional fact-finding role of the jury; has adopted guideposts for evaluating the excessiveness of punitive damages that “have little relationship to the facts of the case;” has undermined the power of state courts to punish and deter; and, in Williams, adopted a “semantic distinction between punishment-for-harm and punishment-for-reprehensibility that has no substantive or evidentiary value.” She blames the Supreme Court’s mistakes on the Justices’ “desire to shape political decisions.” Other than that, she thinks the Supreme Court is doing a great job!

    UPDATE (on 6/17/08): An anonymous reader left a comment informing us that the article is now available on the Washburn University School of Law’s website. Thanks for the tip!

  • Hastings Law Professor Rory Little Appointed As Special Prosecutor in Disciplinary Proceeding Against Tommy Girardi and Walter Lack

    Yesterday we blogged about the Ninth Circuit’s order appointing a special prosecutor to pursue disciplinary sanctions against prominent plaintiffs’ lawyers Tommy Girardi and Walter Lack. Today the Ninth Circuit has issued a further order appointing UC Hastings Law professor Rory K. Little as the special prosecutor. Hat tip to Legal Pad.

    UPDATE: You can view Professor Little’s bio here. He has prior experience as a prosecutor and has served on the ABA’s Standing Committee on Legal Ethics, so he appears particularly qualified for this assignment.

  • Price v. Gingrich: Unpublished CA Court of Appeal Opinion Reinstates $500,000 Punitive Damages Award

    In this unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division Two) reinstated a $500,000 punitive damages award that had been declared void by the trial court.

    This is a fraud case in which the defendant was accused of running a Ponzi scheme and defrauding the plaintiff of $500,000. The jury awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. Over a year later, the defendant moved to vacate the judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of presenting evidence of the defendant’s financial condition. The trial court agreed and vacated the award on the ground that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to award punitive damages in the absence of evidence of the defendant’s financial condition.

    The Court of Appeal reversed. While acknowledging that a party can move to vacate a void judgment at any time, the court concluded that this particular judgment was not void. A plaintiff’s failure to present evidence of the defendant’s financial condition is not a jurisdictional issue – – it is a collateral attack on the judgment that must be raised either by a timely posttrial motion or on a direct appeal. Accordingly, the court erred in granting the motion to vacate. The Court of Appeal went on to say that, aside from the procedural problem, the trial court’s ruling was substantively erroneous because the plaintiff did in fact present sufficient evidence of the defendant’s financial condition to demonstrate that the award was not excessive.

    The Court of Appeal’s procedural analysis seems correct, but the analysis of the substantive issue is a little troubling. The court focuses on evidence that the defendant had sufficient unencumbered assets to pay a $500,000 punitive damages award. The court’s analysis suggests that a $500,000 is not excessive so long as the defendant has $500,000 in liquid assets. But California courts have traditionally applied a different standard. The California Supreme Court has said that courts should consider whether the award is disproportionate to the defendant’s ability to pay, not merely whether the award exceeds the defendant’s ability to pay. (See Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 112.) Applying that standard, the lower courts have adopted a 10 percent “rule of thumb” – – an award is disproportionate to the defendant’s ability to pay if the award exceeds 10 percent of the defendant’s net worth. (See Michelson v. Hamada (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1596 [“Punitive damages constitute a windfall. [Citation.] Such awards generally are not allowed to exceed 10 percent of the net worth of the defendant”].)

    Under the 10 percent rule, the award in this case appears to be excessive, since the opinion indicates that the defendant had a net worth of $1.8 million. That wouldn’t make any difference to the ultimate outcome of this appeal because the defendant failed to raise the issue in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, it is a little troubling to see the Court of Appeal departing from traditional principles of California punitive damages law, even if the entire discussion is dictum in an unpublished opinion.