I mention this unpublished opinion only because we report on all California appellate decisions on punitive damages. There doesn't appear to be anything particularly interesting here.
The California Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Two) concludes that the defendants' conduct warranted punitive damages because they made intentional misrepresentations with the goal of destroying the plaintiff's business. And the court affirms the amount of the award (in excess of $11 million), which was less than the amount of compensatory damages ($15 million). If there's an interesting legal angle in there somewhere, I'm not seeing it, even though it's a pretty big award.
Arbitration: What does that mean?
1 hour ago
