Later this morning, the California Supreme Court will be publishing rulings in three cases, two of which pertain to constitution issues arising from punitive damage liability.
The first punitive damage case is Simon v. San Paolo, S121933 (B121917; Los Angeles County Superior Court – BC152431), argued in Los Angeles April 7, 2005. This case includes two primary issues: (i) in determining whether an award of punitive damages is constitutionally excessive under the principles of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408 ("State Farm"), should uncompensated or potential harm to the plaintiff be considered? and (ii) whether an award of $1.7 million in punitive damages is excessive when compared to $5,000 in compensatory damages.
The second case is Johnson v. Ford Motor Company, S121723 (F040188; Fresno County Superior Court – 647076-9), also argued in Los Angeles on April 7. This case includes two related issues: (i) whether State Farm leave the court with discretion to base punitive damages upon principles of general deterrence of wrongful conduct in this state and/or disgorgement of profits obtained by wrongful acts in this state, or whether the punitive damages must be limited to the amount sufficient to punish the tortfeasor for the harm caused the individual plaintiff; and (ii) whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing a $10 million punitive damage award to $53, 435.
From what I've heard, the plaintiffs shouldn't go out and start spending their money just yet.
These rulings are of interest to wage and hour experts because punitive damages in the wage and hour field are uncommon, because most prudent employers settle wage claims without going to trial, but they can be quite large when you get them, as in Bender v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. (2002) 26 Fed.Appx. 726 (compensatory damages in the sum of $9,860 and punitive damages in the sum of $943,000 for one plaintiff, and compensatory damages in the sum of $5,970 and punitive damages in the sum of $890,000 for the other plaintiff, all based upon denied meal and rest periods.)
Comments