March 4, 2015

Trial judge in AutoZone case hears arguments on post-trial motions

Last year we blogged about the $185 million punitive damages verdict that a San Diego federal jury awarded to a single plaintiff in an employment case (Juarez v. AutoZone).  We predicted, along with pretty much everyone else, that the award would not survive judicial review.  Even the Consumer Attorneys of California, who ordinarily advocate for big punitive damage awards, went on record saying that this award is obviously excessive

ABC10News in San Diego reported this morning that the trial judge in that case was set to hear arguments on AutoZone's post-trial motions.

For those interested in digging into this a little further, here are links to the parties' primary briefs on the post-trial motions:

AutoZone's new trial motion
AutoZone's motion for judgment as a matter of law
Plaintiff's opposition to new trial motion
Plaintiff's opposition to motion for judgment as a matter of law
AutoZone's reply in support of new trial motion
AutoZone's reply in support of motion for judgment as a matter of law

1 comment:

  1. My name is J.G. Preston, I am press secretary for Consumer Attorneys of California. We did not say the AutoZone verdict was "obviously excessive." What we did say in our release was "such big punitive damages awards are inevitably scaled back to a fraction of what was ordered by a jury"...that "nobody at AutoZone is expecting to write a check for $185 million"...and we quoted a Wall Street Journal reporter who wrote, accurately, that "juries don't get the final word." And that was the point of the release.