The California Supreme Court issued an order today granting itself an extension of time to rule on the petition for review in Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co. (See the court’s online docket.) The new deadline for a ruling is July 25, but the court is likely to rule well before the 25th. As readers of this blog will recall, the court did the same thing last week in another punitive damages case, Holdgrafer v. Unocal, and then the court ruled on the petition this week.
-
Widener Law Journal’s Crimtorts Symposium
TortsProfblog has a post with hyperlinks to all the articles in the forthcoming Widener Law Journal Crimtorts Symposium issue. Some of the more intriguing titles include:
The Supreme Court and Me: Trapped in Time with Punitive Damages by Michael L. Rustad.
A Theory of Wealth and Punitive Damages by Keith N. Hylton
The Road Not Taken: Would Application of the Excessive Fines Clause to Punitive Damages Have Made a Difference? by Sheila B. Scheuerman
-
Directorship Magazine Ranks State Litigation Climates: California Ranked 46th
Directorship Magazine has released its annual “State Litigation Guide,” which it describes as “The annual boardroom guide to the litigation climates in all 50 states.” Among other things, the guide focuses on each state’s propensity for imposing large amounts of punitive damages.
According to the survey, the 10 best states are:
1. Tennessee
2. Utah
3. Indiana
4. Ohio
5. North Dakota
6. North Carolina
7. Nebraska
8. Virginia
9. Michigan
10. South DakotaThe 10 worst states are:
1. Illinois
2. West Virginia
3. Rhode Island
4. Pennsylvania
5. California
6. Florida
7. Montana
8. New York
9. Maryland
10. AlabamaWest Virginia businesses will no doubt be pleased that their state is only the second worst, which is actually an improvement over other similar studies.
Hat tip: TortsProf Blog.
-
Alabama Trial Judge Cuts AstraZeneca Punitive Damages From $160 Million Down to $120 Million
A few months ago, an Alabama jury awarded $40 million in compensatory damages and $175 million in punitive damages against AstraZeneca (the maker of Nexium and Crestor). Today, the San Jose Mercury News is reporting that the trial judge in that case has reduced the punitive damages down to $120 million, but left the rest of the award intact. That brings the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages down to three-to-one, but AstraZeneca will undoubtedly argue on appeal that the maximum amount of punitive damages is $40 million, citing the language in State Farm v. Campbell that supports the imposition of a one-to-one limit in cases with “substantial” compensatory damages.
-
Law Review Article: “Recognition and Enforcement of U.S. Punitive Damages Awards in Continental Europe: The Italian Supreme Court’s Veto”
The Summer 2008 edition of the Hastings International and Comparative Law Review contains an article entitled “Recognition and Enforcement of U.S. Punitive Damages Awards in Continental Europe: the Italian Supreme Court’s Veto.” (31 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 753.) The article is written by Francesco Quarta, an L.L.M. candidate at Hastings and a research scholar on the law faculty of Università del Salento, in Lecce, Italy.The article focuses primarily on the Italian court system’s refusal to enforce a $1 million judgment entered against an Italian bicycle manufacturer in a wrongful death action in federal district court in Alabama. Alabama law is rather unusual in that punitive damages are the only form of damages recoverable in wrongful death actions. In this case, the plaintiffs’ sought to enforce the judgment in Italy, but an intermediate appellate court in Venice ruled that the judgment was unenforeceable because punitive damages are not recognized under Italian law. The Italian Supreme Court affirmed.
The article maintains that, in general, refusal to enforce U.S. punitive damages awards is consistent with Italian law. The article suggests, however, in cases where an award is nominally designated as punitive but contains some compensatory element (as is apparently the case with Alabama wrongful death awards), Italian courts should make some effort to separate the compensatory and punitive components of the awards, instead of rejecting such awards in their entirety. The article also suggests that Italian courts should refuse to enforce some U.S. compensatory damages awards, such as emotional distress awards, to the extent they contain a punitive component.
For whatever reason, European views on American punitive damages awards seems to be a hot topic now.
-
No Ruling on Exxon Valdez Case Today; The Supreme Court May Issue Its Opinion on Monday
The U.S. Supreme Court issued five opinions today, but did not decide the ExxonValdez case (Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker). The term is coming to a close and the Court still has 10 unresolved cases. The next batch of opinions will be released on Monday.
-
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.
