Pearl v. City of L.A., No. B285235 (D2d7 Jun 18, 2019)
Plaintiff won a $17 million jury verdict against the City of LA on FEHA claims alleging that he had been harassed on the basis of his race and perceived sexual orientation. On the City’s motion for new trial, the trial court decided that at least part of the award for past non-economic damages was actually punitive. The Court believed the jury wanted to punish the City because so many of its witnesses committed perjury. It issued a remittitur under Code of Civil Procedure § 662.5, conditionally denying the new trial motion upon Plaintiff’s acceptance of a $5 million reduction in the verdict. Plaintiff took the deal.
On appeal, the City argues that once the trial court found that part of the jury’s verdict was improperly punitive, it was compelled to grant the new trial motion because that rendered the verdict defective as a matter of law. That’s not the case. In deciding a new trial motion on excessive damages, the trial court sits as an independent trier of fact. The court was entitled to find that only a portion of the award was improperly punitive, and to offer a remittitur to take that into account.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment