Legal News and Appellate Tips

Each week, TVA appellate attorney Tim Kowal reviews several recent decisions out of the appellate courts in California, and elsewhere, and reports about the ones that might help you get an edge in your cases and appeals.

If you would like to receive weekly updates of the articles posted here, click here to sign up for the newsletter.

Tag: Excessive Damages

Arbitration award under FAA won’t be overturned unless it’s a “form of vigilante justice”

Question: What’s the difference between an arbitration ruling based on an interpretation of contract that is merely wrong, and one that is irrational?

The answer in Hayday Farms, Inc. v. FeedX Holdings, Inc., No. 21-55650 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2022), an appeal from an arbitration award, is about $7 million.

This is yet another cautionary tale that arbitration severely constrains the litigants’ appellate rights. The 9th Circuit panel agreed that the appellant’s interpretation of the contract was the right one, but that was not enough: the arbitration award was not “irrational” or “some form of vigilante justice,” so it stands.

The arbitration panel awarded the plaintiffs $21 million on the contract dispute, but when the plaintiffs moved the district court to confirm the award, the defendants argued that $21 million was excessive. The large award was more than the plaintiffs stood to receive had the contract been performed, and so under California Civil Code section 3358, the award was excessive.

The district court agreed the arbitration award was excessive, and reduced it by $7 million.

The 9th Circuit reversed the district court and reinstated the aribtral award, even though the panel agreed with the district court that the award was excessive. As Judge Milan wrote, the defendant "probably offers the best interpretation of the parties’ agreements,” and the panel expressed "concern about a seemingly unfair damages award that likely violates § 3358.”

But as long as the arbitral award "was not some form of vigilante justice,” it has to be affirmed.

Read More
Challenge to Extraordinarily Large $25M Mesothelioma Verdict Rejected on Appeal Because Challenge Not Based on "Minutes of the Court"

When a jury returns a large verdict, the unhappy defendant has to file a motion for new trial to reduce the verdict. (You can't just appeal directly, or else you'd waive the excessive-damages issue.) One way to argue the damages are excessive is to demonstrate the amount is the result of passion or prejudice. And one way to demonstrate that might be to compare verdicts in similar cases.

That is what the defendant-appellant tried after it was hit with a $25 million noneconomic verdict in the mesothelioma case of Phipps v. Copeland Corp. (D2d7 May 18, 2021) 278 Cal.Rptr 3d 688 (2021 WL 1973560). The appellant compiled 15 comparable cases into a report, and submitted that with a declaration in support of its motion for a new trial. But the trial court excluded the report as irrelevant and denied the motion. On appeal, the appellant argued the trial court erred in this ruling because verdicts in other cases were relevant.

Held: The compilation of other cases was not based on "the minutes of the court" under Code of Civil Procedure section 658, and thus could not be considered as a basis to reduce damages on a motion for new trial. Affirmed.

This analysis seems harsh, but it is based on the statutes. Do not rely on declarations in a new trial motion. Support your motion based on the court minutes.

I find it noteworthy the court decided this case the way it did. The court apparently did as well, as it published the opinion. This signals a bigger uphill climb for defendants challenging large jury verdicts. This is an important reason to have appellate counsel present at trial.

Read More
So You Filed a Motion for New Trial to Reduce the Amount of the Judgment — But What If You Win?

Motions for new trial are seldom granted. So seldom, in fact, that many attorneys — and judges, too — don't even know what to do when it happens. For example, a plaintiff has a right to a jury trial, and that includes a right to have the jury determine the amount of damages. So what happens when the judge, in ruling on a new trial motions, decides the jury's award was way too high and a remittitur (reduction of the award) is appropriate? How may the judge reduce the jury's award consistent with the plaintiff's right to a jury trial?

That is the situation that arose in Duncan v. Kihagi (D1d1 Aug. 9, 2021) no. A153521 (nonpub. opn.). Following trial in a slumlord lawsuit, the tenant received a verdict of $3.5 million (after a statutory trebling of damages). On the landlord's new trial motion, the judge agreed the verdict should be reduced to $2.7 million. The Court of Appeal explained the procedure for reducing jury verdicts, and even though the judge failed to follow that procedure completely, the court affirmed anyway.

Get a weekly digest of these articles delivered to your inbox by subscribing here: https://lnkd.in/g23bc4Y.

Read More
$3.5MM Emotional Distress Verdict Reduced on Appeal as Influenced by Improper Closing Argument

Awards for emotional distress can add tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to a workplace-retaliation claim. But there are limits. And in Briley v. City of West Covina (D2d4 Jul. 1, 2021) no. B295666, 2021 WL 2708945, the court pointed to counsel's personal attack during closing argument as evidence the verdict was based on improper factors."[C]ounsel's attack on the integrity of opposing counsel during his rebuttal argument further suggests that the jury's noneconomic damages award rested on improper factors."

The result was a $1.5 million award was reduced to $100,000. (It probably would have been reduced even without counsel's improper argument.)

Read More
Appellate Court Cites Unpublished Opinion to Support Reasonableness of Pain-and-Suffering Award

Here is another recent opinion in which the Court of Appeal thumbs its nose at the California Rule of Court that prohibits the citing of unpublished opinions for any reason. (Ironically, the Court of Appeal does its nose-thumbing in an unpublished opinion.)

In the hit-and-run personal injury case of Shui v. B.R. & Sons (D2d2 Feb. 25, 2021) No. B299251 (unpublished), the Second District also provides a good illustration for personal-injury plaintiffs how to get key evidence into the record, and how to make a judgment more appeal-proof through the use of jury instructions.

This is another installment in a series of posts about ways appellate courts have cited unpublished cases, despite Rule of Court 8.1115. These cases might inspire ideas of how, with a little ingenuity, you too might bring up unpublished cases. But there is one thing you can bank on: if ever we find an example of someone being sanctioned for violating 8.1115, the perpetrator will not be an appellate justice. So follow these judges' examples, if at all, with extreme caution.

Read More

Tags

Podcast (127)
Videos (109)
Appealability and Appealable Orders (40)
Legal Writing (29)
Anti-SLAPP (29)
Oral Argument (25)
Abuse of Discretion (24)
Mischief (24)
Splits of Authority (23)
Statements of Decision (23)
Record on Appeal (23)
Timely and Untimely Appeals (22)
Unpublished Opinions (22)
Waiver and Forfeiture (22)
Notices of Appeal (21)
California Supreme Court (21)
Stays on Appeal (21)
Judgment Enforcement (20)
Arbitration (19)
Attorney Fees (18)
Briefing (18)
Trial Strategy (16)
Dismissals (15)
Sanctions (15)
Evidentiary Objections (14)
Writ Petitions (13)
Summary Judgments and Summary Adjudications (13)
Dissents (13)
Collateral Orders (13)
Appellate Sanctions (13)
Timeliness (12)
Civility (12)
Exclusion of Evidence (12)
Dismissed Appeals (12)
Preliminary Injunctions (12)
New Trial Motions (12)
Jurisdiction (12)
Posttrial Motions (11)
Experts (11)
Family Law (11)
Trial Procedure (11)
CCP 998 Offers (11)
Federal Courts (11)
Mootness (11)
Motions for Reconsideration (10)
Standards of Review (10)
Implied Findings (10)
Admission of Improper Evidence (9)
Appellate Briefing (9)
Respondent Arguments (8)
Disqualification (8)
Settlements (8)
Appealability (8)
Discovery (7)
Pretrial Procedure (7)
Finding Compelled as a Matter of Law (Failure of Proof) Standard of Review (7)
Probate Appeals (7)
Appellate Bonds (7)
Default Judgments (7)
Appellate Practice (7)
Trial Irregularities and Structural Errors (7)
Federal Appeals (7)
Ninth Circuit (7)
Stipulated Judgments (7)
Disentitlement Doctrine (6)
Substantial Evidence (6)
Litigation Tips (6)
Mediation (6)
Petitions for Review (6)
Depublished Opinions (6)
Ethical Duty of Candor (6)
Trust and Probate (5)
Excessive Damages (5)
Summary Judgments (5)
Standing (5)
Right to Jury Trial (5)
Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Judgments (5)
Notices of Entry (5)
Demurrers (5)
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (5)
Stipulated Reversals (4)
Appealable Orders (4)
Motions in Limine (4)
Jury Instructions (4)
Appeals Treated as Writs (4)
Motions to Dismiss (4)
Expert Opinions (4)
Motions to Vacate (4)
Frivolous Motions (4)
Prejudicial Error (4)
Tentative Rulings (4)
Juror Peremptory Challenges (3)
Writs of Mandamus (CCP 1085) (3)
Personal Jurisdiction (3)
Standards of Evidence (3)
Class Actions (3)
Summary Judgment (3)
Forfeiture and Waiver (3)
Jury Waivers (3)
Landlord Tenant (3)
Frivolous Appeals (3)
Amicus Briefs (3)
Law and Motion (3)
Stays (3)
Legal Practice (3)
Recovery of Costs (3)
Pretrial Issues (3)
Constitutional Law (3)
Legal Tech (3)
Attorney Client Privilege (2)
Civil Theft (2)
Remote Arguments (2)
Invited Error (2)
Post Reversal Issues (2)
Appeals Dismissed (2)
Contempt (2)
ADA and Unruh Accessibility Actions (2)
Court Reporters (2)
Persuasion (2)
Clear and Convincing (2)
Judicial Admissions (2)
Medical Rights (2)
Judicial Bias (2)
Stare Decisis (2)
Alter Ego (2)
Trial by Reference and Pro Tem Judges (2)
Untimeliness (2)
Harmless Error (2)
Pleadings (2)
Comments (2)
Record Designation (2)
Mistrials (2)
New Trial (2)
Premature Appeals (2)
Tentative Opinions and Focus Letters (2)
Podcasts (2)
Waiver (2)
PAGA Actions (2)
Finality and Final Orders (2)
Inherent Authority (1)
Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (1)
Post Reversal (1)
Split of Authority (1)
Evidentiary Presumptions (1)
Juror Misconduct (1)
Ninth CircuitAbuse of Discretion (1)
Constitutional Litigation (1)
Per Se Errors (1)
Typeface (1)
Forfeiture (1)
Attorney Fees - CCP 1021.5 (1)
Issue Selection on Appeal (1)
PostJudgment Litigation (1)
Typography (1)
Nonsuit (1)
Product Liability (1)
Local Rules (1)
Restraining Orders (1)
Trade Restraints (1)
Attorney Feese (1)
DismissalsAppealability and Appealable Orders (1)
U.S. Supreme Court (1)
Administrative Law (1)
Exhaustion of Remedies (1)
Nonsuits JNOVs and 631.8 Judgments (1)
Covid (1)
Free Exercise (1)
Treble Damages (1)
Attorney Misconduct (1)
Motions to Quash (1)
Precedent (1)
Clerks Service of File Stamped Judgment (1)
Notice of Appeal (1)
Property Rights (1)
Cross-Appeals (1)
Petitions for Rehearing (1)
Review as Writ Petition (1)
Trespass (1)
Bankruptcy (1)
Preclusion (1)
Unsupported Arguments (1)
Closing Argument (1)
Punitive Damages (1)
Summary Reversal (1)
Memorandum Opinions (1)
Benefits Obtained Trespass Damages (1)
Judicial Estoppel (1)
State Civil Procedure Comparison Project (1)
Family Court (1)
Record (1)
Summary Reversals (1)
Employment Law (1)
Judicial Misconduct (1)
New Arguments (1)
Anecdotes (1)
Law of the Case (1)
Support Awards (1)
Settled Statements (1)
Erie Problems (1)
Judicial Notice (1)
Waived and Forfeiture (1)
Common Interest Doctrine (1)
Out-of-State Litigant (1)
Designating the Record (1)
Inconsistent Verdicts (1)
Moot Appeals (1)
Judicial Philosophy (1)
Premises Liability (1)
Consenting to Judgments (1)
Art of Persuasion (1)
Dicta (1)
Incorrect Decisions (1)
Post-Appellate Issues (1)
Split Decisions (1)
Trial Tips (1)
Civil Code 3334 (1)
PAGA Attorney Fees (1)
Referral Fees (1)
Third Parties and Nonparties (1)
No categories Legal Writing (0)
Professional Ethics (0)
Appellate (0)
Petitionf ro Review (0)
Retainer Agreements (0)
Landlore Tenant (0)
crossmenuchevron-down