Order Conditionally Granting Motion For New Trial As To Punitive Damages Filed in Candace Conti Case

You are right, Refried. The damage has been done.

Without having seen the documents, I'm fairly confident that the "order conditionally granting motion for new trial as to punitive damages" in the Conti case means that the court has deemed the punitive damages award to be "excessive," and, pursuant to its authority under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 662.5, the court is "conditionally" ordering a new trial as to punitive damages; the condition is that the new trial as to punitive damages will occur unless plaintiff Conti accepts a reduction in the amount of such damages (such reduction in damages is determined by the court). The court-determined reduction in the damages is known as a "remittitur." Failure by Conti and her counsel to accept the remittitur determined by the court will result in a new trial on the issue of how much punitive damages should be awarded.

Thanks 144001. Your take on this sounds reasonable.

You're welcome, whathappened.

I have not been following this case that closely but would be curious to look at the case documents. Does anyone have the case number?

It is quite lengthy but there are links to the documents on other threads. Search for them and you will find them easily. Good luck.

Just be thankful that CA. even has punitive damages as many states now disallow them. Even so, 75% of Conti's punitive damages will be paid to a state fund and she will get only 25%.

Remittitur: Where a new trial is granted on the ground of excessive damages, the order may be subject to the condition that a new trial is denied if plaintiff consents to a reduction (“remittitur”) to an amount the court determines to be fair and reasonable. [CCP § 662.5(b)] (1) Application • [18:443] In an employment discrimination case, the jury awarded over $1.6 million in noneconomic damages . The trial judge conditionally granted a motion for new trial [concerning the amount of punitive damages only] unless P accepted $125,000 in noneconomic damages . The trial judge noted that there were no damages due for harassment. There was no evidence of pain requiring medical attention, or loss of reputation, or that P had trouble finding a new job or was scorned by the public. Moreover, there was no evidence of any future damages or injury. [Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 CA4th 121, 147, 68 CR3d 568, 587–588 (new trial order affirmed)] • [18:443.1] In a tobacco case, the jury assessed $3 billion in punitive damages . A motion for new trial was conditionally granted unless P accepted a reduction of punitives to $100 million, in which case the motion was denied. P consented and judgment was entered. On appeal, the judgment was reduced to $50 million and on rehearing the judgment was affirmed with punitive damages again reduced to $50 million if P accepted the remittitur. But if P did not accept, a new trial on the punitive damages issue was affirmed. [Boeken v. Philip Morris Inc. (2005) 127 CA4th 1640, 1650, 26 CR3d 638, 645–646] • [18:443.2] In an action for breach of indenture agreements, the trial court made its grant of new trial conditional. The new trial motion would be denied if plaintiffs consented to a reduction in damages from $15,788,750 to $3,051,552.70. The trial court explained that the verdict was too speculative for the trier of fact to conclude that no one would have invested in Trust IV if they had known that Trusts I and II were having financial difficulties. “The trial court, which heard the evidence, and was in a position to assess the credibility of plaintiffs‘ witnesses, was entitled to conclude the jury's award was based on speculation.” [Dell'Oca v. Bank of New York Trust Co., N.A. (2008) 159 CA4th 531, 546, 552, 71 CR3d 737, 750, 755] (2) [18:444] Limitation: Remittitur is confined to cases in which the only jury error was an excessive damages award: i.e., where “granting a new trial limited to the issue of damages would be proper.” [CCP § 662.5; Schelbauer v. Butler Mfg. Co. (1984) 35 C3d 442, 454, 198 CR 155, 162; Thompson v. Friendly Hills Regional Med. Ctr. (1999) 71 CA4th 544, 548, 84 CR2d 51, 53–54] (a) [18:445] Cannot be used to reapportion liability: Thus, remittitur cannot be used to reapportion liability among the parties. [Schelbauer v. Butler Mfg. Co., supra, 35 C3d at 454, 198 CR at 162] • [18:446] D's motion for new trial was granted unless P consented to a 15% reduction in the verdict, reflecting the court's determination that P was at least 5% contributorily negligent and P's employer was at least 10% negligent. This condition was improper. The order granting new trial was unconditional. (But, on appeal from the order granting new trial, the appellate court could modify it to limit retrial to the issue of apportionment of liability.) [Schelbauer v. Butler Mfg. Co., supra, 35 C3d at 458, 198 CR at 165]

Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Trials & Ev. Ch. 18-B