Mayer Brown Appellate Group Launches New And Improved Web Site

Way back in the prehistoric era of the worldwide web, Mayer Brown’s appellate group created what was, at the time, an innovative new web site. It was among the first legal web sites to incorporate sound (oral argument recordings) and archive vast amounts of information (the brief bank).

But times have changed and our web presence has needed to change with it, so I am pleased to announce the introduction of our new and improved web site, the url for which, like that of its predecessor, is www.appellate.net. My colleagues and I hope that you will find the site to be a useful resource.

Appellatenet

 

 

 

 

 

Some Thoughts About Verdict Forms

Sign-Jury_Deliberations_2984166When we are asked to assist with post-verdict motions after a jury has returned a large punitive award, all too often we find that the verdict form relating to punitive liability asks only whether the standard for punitive liability has been satisfied.  That presents a handicap from which it may be impossible to recover.

Continue Reading

Why Senator Leahy’s Proposal To Bar Businesses From Deducting Punitive Awards From Taxable Income Is A Bad Idea

Books-IRS_187115In mid-January, Senator Patrick Leahy (Dem. Vt.) proposed—again—legislation that would prevent businesses from deducting from taxable income any punitive damages they have paid during the relevant tax year.

Although it would seem that this legislation has little chance of being enacted in the current Republican-controlled Congress, out of an abundance of caution we think it is worth reciting the reasons why this proposal is a bad idea.

Continue Reading

Second Circuit Holds 4:1 Ratio Excessive And Orders Remittitur To 2:1 In Hostile-Environment Case

In late December, the Second Circuit released a significant and interesting decision on excessiveness of punitive damages—and we say that not just because we represented the defendants in the case.

Traffic Cop Blowing WhistleTurley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc. involved racial harassment of a steel worker by his fellow employees.  The plaintiff alleged that his employer and its parent did not respond adequately to the harassment.  A jury agreed and awarded the plaintiff a total of $1.25 million in compensatory damages—all for emotional distress—and $24 million in punitive damages against the corporate defendants.  The district court determined that the punitive damages were excessive and ordered a remittitur to approximately $5 million.

Although rejecting the defendants’ other arguments, the Second Circuit agreed with defendants that the punitive damages as remitted remained excessive.

Continue Reading

California Court Of Appeal Holds That Plaintiff May Not Collect Both Multiple Damages And Punitive Damages For Same Conduct

Do Not Duplicate StampIn prior posts, we have occasionally adverted to the issue of multiple punishments in the constitutional context.  Just before the new year, a California appellate court issued an unpublished decision in Paletz v. Adaya bearing on a different aspect of the multiple punishment problem.  In Paletz, the Court of Appeal reversed an award of punitive damages as duplicative of an award of statutory penalties, concluding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to collect both forms of punishment for the same course of conduct.

Continue Reading

National Law Journal Recognizes Evan Tager As A “Litigation Trailblazer”

We congratulate our Editor-in-Chief Evan Tager for his inclusion in the National Law Journal’s inaugural list of fifty “Litigation Trailblazers and Pioneers.” The NLJ recognized Evan for, among other things, his groundbreaking efforts to limit punitive damages.  It highlighted his work with Andy Frey in BMW v. Gore, the the seminal case in which the Supreme Court first established the now-familiar guideposts for evaluating the constitutionality of a punitive damages award. We’re proud of Evan!

Tager

Federal District Court Upholds 13:1 Ratio Based On Defendant’s Wealth

We have noticed a disturbing trend recently of courts upholding punitive damages awards that are high multiples of the compensatory damages.  One example is Mitri v. Walgreen Co., in which the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California upheld a punitive award that is thirteen times the substantial compensatory award based almost entirely on the fact that the defendant is a wealthy corporation.

Continue Reading

Why Courts Should Not Defer To Phantom Factual Findings When Reviewing Punitive Damages Awards For Excessiveness

HorrorEveryone who follows punitive damages law knows that the Supreme Court has identified three guideposts for determining whether a punitive award is excessive under the Due Process Clause: (i) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct; (ii) the ratio of the punitive damages to the compensatory damages and/or the harm to the plaintiff that was likely to result from the defendant’s conduct; and (iii) the disparity between the punitive damages and the legislatively established penalties for comparable conduct.  The first guidepost in particular requires an assessment predicated on the facts of the case, which the parties will likely have disputed.  How should courts go about resolving those disputes?

Continue Reading

UNANIMOUS EN BANC PANEL OF NINTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT TITLE VII CAP OBVIATES NEED TO REVIEW TITLE VII PUNITIVE AWARDS FOR EXCESSIVENESS UNDER BMW GUIDEPOSTS

Boton cuadrado blanco numero romano 7Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit granted en banc review in Arizona v. ASARCO LLC to consider whether a punitive damages award that is subject to Title VII’s cap of $300,000 could nonetheless be unconstitutionally excessive when the compensatory damages are nominal and the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages accordingly is high.

In a post about the case a few weeks before the argument, I expressed the view that the parties and the courts were focused on the wrong question and that the right question is whether, as a matter of federal common law, a punitive award at the high end of the range is appropriate under the facts of the particular case.   And in a subsequent post, I explained why under that approach the punitive award in ASARCO should be considered excessive.

Yesterday, in an opinion by newly minted Chief Judge Sidney Thomas the en banc Ninth Circuit unanimously held that the concerns underlying the Supreme Court’s due process decisions—that the defendant receive fair notice of the extent of punishment to which it could be subjected and that defendants not be subjected to arbitrary punishments—are fully satisfied by Title VII’s cap.

Continue Reading

LexBlog