by DNCall 35 Replies latest jw friends
JT,
Cal. Civ. Code § 3294.5. was repealed by its own terms, operative July 1, 2006. It is inapplicable to Conti.
Apparently, the editors have not truly updated their work.
Punitive Damages State-by-State Guide § 7:15 (2011 ed.) Punitive Damages: A State-By-State Guide To Law And Practice Database updated April 2011 Lori S. Nugent a0 , Robert W. Hammesfahr a1 , Richard L. Blatt (in memoriam) a2 Chapter 7. Summary of the Relevant Laws of the States and Territories B. State Summaries
JT, Diest, and 144000, thank you for the helpful info regarding Ca law. This case will undoutedly set precident for countless others. Like the rest of you I eagerly await the judges response along with that of Mr. Simons.
It's been already posted on another thread, but to update here:
In a nutshell, if the plaintiff agrees, the punitive damages of $21 million is to be reduced to $8.61 million. I'm assuming that if the plaintiff doesn't agree (and assuming I've understood correctly) then I guess there'll be a new trial on the punitive part only. The compensatory part (the $7 million) appears to be secure so far.
The court determined a remittitur to be appropriate such that the punitive damages award is reduced from the $21 million awarded by the jury to $8,610,000 as determined by the trial judge. Plaintiff Conti has 30 days to decide whether to accept that amount or whether to undergo a new trial which would be limited solely to the issue of how much punitive damages should be awarded. The court did not order that any other issue be retried.
Poster 14400I is correct in his last post as far as we know.
I might be going out on a limb here, but until we hear differently, the following information might be of use:
Compensatory Damages:
Regarding the jury award of $7M compensatory damage, the judge's order said: "The jury allocated responsibility as follows: Kendrick 60 percent; North Fremont 13 percent and Watchtower 27 percent. The jury also found an agency relationship to have existed between North Fremont and Watchtower. " As we read in older documents, Kendrick was let off the hook - he doesn't pay a dime or the 60% of the compensatory damage. This leaves Watchtower to pay 27% and the North Fremont Congregation to pay 13%. We understand that the Watchtower will pay the 13% owed by the congregation because of the agency relationship. The Watchtower then owes Candace 40% of the $7M compensatory damage award which is $2.8M.
Punitive Damages:
According to the latest court decision, the punitive damage award was reduced by the judge to $8,610,000.
$8,610,000 + 2,800,000 = $11,410,000 is the total of what we believe that Watchtower owes Candace Conti
Joe Grundy:
1. Correct; the granting of the motion has no effect on the finding of cvil liability for any of the defendants.
2. Correct; compensatory damages are unaffected.
3. Correct; only the amount of punitive damages to be awarded is affected by the court's order.
4. Correct; the court's determination as to how much punitive damages should be reduced by is known as a "remittitur."
5. Correct, Ms. Conti has 30 days to decide whether to accept the $8.61 million in punitive damages as reduced by the remittitur or to proceed with a new trial only on the issue of how much in punitive damages should be awarded.
6. Supplemental questions: Yes, the court can determine that a judgment is too small and can order an "additur," which is the opposite of a remittitur. In such a situation, the court will order a new trial unless the defendant agrees to accept the "additur," which is an increase to the amount awarded in the judgment. If Ms. Conti opts for a new trial on the issue of damages, a jury will be empaneled to hear the issue of damages only. I do not have the time to research whether the jury could revise the award upwards if a new trial is held but I am unaware of any legal reason as to why they couldn't.
I'll take you up on the beer offer when you visit Southern California.
Peace through power tools!
