April 9, 2010

Cupps v. Mendelson: Trial Court Properly Vacated $160,000 Punitive Damages Award Because Plaintiff Failed to Prove Defendant's Financial Condition

Here's another case in which a plaintiff forfeited his right to punitive damages because he failed to present meaningful evidence of the defendant's financial condition.

The plaintiff won a verdict for $288,000 in compensatory damages and $160,000 in punitive damages. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for partial JNOV and eliminated the punitive damages award, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to introduce meaningful evidence of the defendant's financial condition.

The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division One) affirmed. The plaintiff apparently conceded on appeal that he presented no direct evidence of the defendant's financial condition, but he tried to prop up the punitive damages award by pointing to expert testimony regarding the value of a business partly owned by the defendant. The Court of Appeal determined that the expert never directly opined about the value of the business, and was not even qualified to do so.

The plaintiff also tried to rely on Cummings Medical Corp. v. Occupational Medical Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1292 for the proposition that a plaintiff need not introduce evidence of the defendant's financial condition, and can rely instead on the amount of profit the defendant gained from the misconduct at issue. The Court of Appeal noted that it had previously rejected that reasoning in Kenly v. Ukegawa (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 49, which held that an award cannot be based solely on the alleged "profit" gained by the defendant, "without examining the liabilities side of the balance sheet."

1 comment:

  1. This story makes me sick. Whatever happened to justice. The courts are funny, they take the stance that they can award people damages, however they take a hands off approach on enforcing the judgment. Perhaps they need to take a note for the Supreme Court and learn to be more progressively minded in their adjudications: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/04/08/the-last-100-years-of-the-supreme-court/