California Punitives by Horvitz & Levy
  • Keanu Reeves Fights Punitive Damages Claim

    Here we go again, with yet another celebrity punitive damages case. The Long-Beach Press Telegram reports that a photographer is suing Keanu Reeves for punitive damages. Apparently, the photographer was trying to take a picture of Reeves in his parked car, and Reeves pulled the car away from the curb, knocking down the plaintiff. The article indicates that Los Angeles Superior Court judge Elizabeth Grimes will hear Reeves’ motion to strike the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages on Monday.

    Reeves is represented by David Ozeran, who is perhaps best known for representing Lindsay Lohan. Ozeran also happens to be an appellate specialist, and we’ve had the pleasure of working with him as co-counsel on several appellate matters.

  • Does the Bible Encourage Lawsuits for Punitive Damages?

    Michael Roberts at Injuryboard.com has a post entitled “Trial Lawyers and the Bible,” in which he states that the work of plaintiffs’ lawyers has biblical roots. He cites several biblical passages which support the notion of providing compensation for property damages and personal injuries. He also cites a passage from the book of Exodus that contemplates an early form of punitive damages. I wonder whether the bible also authorizes the concept of defending against false or excessive claims.

    ADDITIONAL COMMENT (BY Jeremy Rosen): Assuming biblical passages are a good source for punitive damages, it is interesting that one of the cited passages suggests that single digit ratios between punitive and compensatory damages are required: “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. . . . (Exodus 22:1-4).”

  • Proposed Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 (HR 275) Would Authorize Punitive Damages for Blocking Government Websites

    An Ars Technica article titled Bill Would Penalize Companies for Aiding Internet Censorship describes an interesting pending bill that includes a provision for punitive damages against companies that give up user information to would-be censors or block content from US government sites. As summarized by Ars Technica:

    “US-based companies could be held liable for helping officials in other countries censor the Internet, if a bill proposed by House Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) is approved. Smith recently announced his plans to push the Global Online Freedom Act (HR 275) to the House floor for voting after having lobbied human rights organization Reporters Without Borders for support. Among other things, the Global Online Freedom Act will bar US companies from disclosing personally-identifiable information about a user, except for ‘legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes.’

    ‘American high-tech firms have produced the technology and know-how that has led to a modern-day information revolution,’ Smith said in a statement. ‘Sadly, however, instead of working to allow everyone to benefit from these advancements, these same high-tech firms are colluding with dictators and tyrannical regimes such as China to suppress human rights information and punish pro-democracy advocates.’


    Among other things, the Act appears to be a direct response to the furor over Yahoo’s involvement in outing a number of Chinese dissidents to the government, resulting in their arrest and imprisonment. At least two Chinese pro-Democracy advocates have filed lawsuits against Yahoo for turning over their e-mails to the government, but Yahoo has said repeatedly that it simply complied with the requests of local law enforcement and was not aware of the nature of the investigations. . . .


    The Global Online Freedom Act would not only prevent companies like Yahoo from giving up the goods to totalitarian regimes, but would also prohibit US-based Internet companies from blocking online content from US government or government-financed web sites in other countries. When it comes to non-government sites, the Act would require companies to disclose to the newly-created Office of Global Internet Freedom the terms that they
    do filter, and for the Office to continually monitor these filtered terms.

    If the companies violate any of these new restrictions, they could face civil and criminal penalties of up to $2 million, and aggrieved citizens (those who have suffered from the companies’ violations, like the Chinese dissidents discussed above) are free to pursue punitive damages and other legal remedies from the offenders.”

    The current version of the bill is available here. The official summary of the bill is available here.

    The specific provision on punitive damages provides: (c) Private Right of Action- Any person aggrieved by a violation of this section may bring an action for damages, including punitive damages, or other appropriate relief in the appropriate district court of the United States, without regard to the amount in controversy, and without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”

  • Unocal Responds to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Review in Holdgrafer v. Unocal

    Yesterday we filed our answer, on behalf of Unocal, to the plaintiffs’ petition for review in Holdgrafer v. Unocal. This is another case we’ve been blogging about for a while, in which the Court of Appeal reversed a $5 million punitive damages award against Unocal because the award was tainted by improperly admitted evidence.

  • Ford Petitions California Supreme Court to Review Buell-Wilson v. Ford

    Earlier this week, Ford filed a petition for review in Buell-Wilson v. Ford, which we’ve been blogging about. That’s the case in which the Court of Appeal reaffirmed a $55 million punitive damages award even after the US Supreme Court vacated their prior opinion affirming the same award. Ford’s petition for review raises the following issues:

    1. What procedural protections against the risk of punishment for alleged harm to nonparties are required by the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Philip Morris v. Williams, and under what circumstances can those constitutional rights be deemed forfeited?

    2. As a matter of California law and federal due process, are punitive damages prohibited in product liability cases where the manufacturer’s design conformed to objective indicators of reasonable safety, including industry standards and custom, governmental safety standards and policy judgments, and the existence of a genuine debate about what the law requires?

    3. Is a $55 million punitive damage award, imposed in addition to $18 million in non-economic damages, in a case involving a single accident where the vehicle’s design was objectively reasonable, unconstitutionally excessive and arbitrary?

  • California Supreme Court Denies Review in Bullock v. Philip Morris

    According to the California Supreme Court’s online docket, the court denied both parties’ petitions for review in Bullock v. Philip Morris. Justice Kennard voted to grant Philip Morris’s petition on the first issue presented, which involved the proper scope of retrial when a court vacates a punitive damages award and it is not possible to determine the particular conduct on which the jury based its finding of liability.

    For copies of the Supreme Court briefing, see our prior posts:

    PM’s petition

    Bullock’s petition

    Answer briefs by both parties

    Reply briefs by both parties

  • “Utah AG Calls for Punitive Damages Caps”

    According to LegalNewsline.com, Utah’s attorney general is open to the idea of capping punitive damages in order to preserve the state’s favorable legal climate. As we mentioned last week, Utah ranked 5th in the recent Harris Poll/U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey of in-house corporate counsel. The State Farm v. Campbell case apparently did little to tarnish Utah’s reputation as a favorable venue for defendants, even though the Utah Supreme Court approved a $145 million punitive damages award (compared to $1 million in compensatory damages) which the U.S. Supreme Court later reversed, saying the case was “neither close nor difficult.”

    UPDATE (By Jeremy Rosen on 4/29 at 4:50 pm): On remand in State Farm v. Campbell, after the United States Supreme Court had made it very clear that the case (with high compensatory damages that included a punitive component) would only permit a 1:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages, the Utah Supreme Court nonetheless found that a 9:1 ratio would be permitted. It must not take much for a jurisdiction to be considered a favorable legal climate for business.

  • Tual v. Blake: California Court of Appeal Reduces Civil Judgment Against Actor Robert Blake From $30 Million to $15 Million

    Once again we’re reporting on a celebrity punitive damages case. This time, the celebrity is Robert Blake, and the case involves his appeal from a $30 million wrongful death judgment against him in a suit brought by the estate of his deceased wife, Bonny Lee Bakley.

    In this unpublished opinion, the Second Appellate District, Division Three, rejects most of his arguments, including his argument that the trial court improperly refused to instruct the jury not to award punitive damages. The jury did not actually award punitive damages per se, but apparently Blake was arguing that the jury’s $30 million compensatory damages award must have included a punitive damages component, and that the jurors would have awarded a lesser amount if they had been told that punitive damages were off the table. The court rejected that argument because the record did not indicate why the trial court failed to give Blake’s proposed instruction. The record showed that Blake requested the instruction and that the court did not give the instruction, but the Court of Appeal said it was Blake’s burden on appeal to provide a record showing why the court did not give the instruction. Because he failed to meet that burden he did not preserve the issue for appeal.

    Nevertheless, the court did afford Blake some relief. It concluded that the $30 million compensatory damages award was excessive and it gave the plaintiff the option to either accept a reduced sum of $15 million or go back to the trial court for a new trial on damages.

  • Follow-Up on City of Hope Decision

    We’ve now had a chance to read the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Hope v. Genentech, which the court issued this morning. Although the court reversed the punitive damages portion of the judgment, the opinion does not address any questions of punitive damages law per se. Instead, the reversal was based entirely on the court’s determination that the relationship between Genentech and City of Hope did not create a fiduciary relationship. Because there was no fiduciary relationship, there was no basis for tort liability and thus no basis for imposing punitive damages. Although the court affirmed the imposition of $300 million in compensatory damages against Genentech for breach of contract, punitive damages may not be awarded for breach of contract in California.
    At the end of the day, City of Hope will end up recovering the bulk of the amount awarded by the jury, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s opinion. Genentech’s appeal succeeded in chopping off $200 million from the amount of the judgment, but failed to knock out the $300 million compensatory award, which has been accruing postjudgment interest at the rate of 10 percent per year since June 2002, bringing the total amount into the neighborhood of $480 million.