1)Motion for New Trial
2)Plaintiff Amanda Quiles? Motion to Strike Portions of Declaration of Travis Guenter
3)Status Conference
Defendant Koji?s motion for partial new trial as to the punitive damages portion of the verdict and judgment is GRANTED, subject to the condition that a new trial will be DENIED if Plaintiff consents to a reduction of the punitive damages award to $175,000 on or before June 30, 2016.? As a preliminary matter, the court SUSTAINS all of Plaintiff?s objections to the Guenther Declaration and GRANTS Plaintiff?s motion to strike those portions of the Declaration. (Evid. Code ? 1150(a); Barboni v. Tuomi(2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 340, 349.)
The motion is granted on the ground that the punitive damages award was excessive, and as a result there was insufficient evidence to justify the verdict or the verdict was against law. (CCP ? 657(5)-(6).)? With respect to CCP ? 657(2), the Court rejects Defendant?s arguments that (1) the jury failed to follow instructions insofar as some jurors awarded punitive damages based on Plaintiff?s role as a class representative and the allegation of meal and rest break violations to the entire class, and (2) that some jurors concealed their bias during voir dire.
Jury Misconduct
?In ruling on a request for a new trial based on jury misconduct, the trial court must undertake a three-step inquiry. [Citation.] First, it must determine whether the affidavits supporting the motion are admissible. (Evid. Code ? 1150.) If the evidence is admissible, the trial court must determine whether the facts establish misconduct. [Citation.] Lastly, assuming misconduct, the trial court must determine whether the misconduct was prejudicial.? (Whitlock v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 149, 160.)
As set forth above, some portions of the Guenther Declaration are inadmissible. Moreover, the remaining portions of the Guenther Declaration do not establish that juror misconduct occurred here.Although Guenther declares that jurors made several statements regarding the motives for awarding damages (? 3-5), Plaintiff has presented competing declarations that disclaim that such statements were made and that any such misconduct occurred (see Dantas Decl. ? 2-6; Tomlinson Decl. ? 3-5.) Also, with respect to concealed bias, Defendant provides no evidence of any juror?s response or failure to respond at the voir dire stage. (See Ovando v. County of Los Angeles(2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 58 [?A juror who conceals relevant facts or gives false answers during the voir dire examination thus undermines the jury selection process and commits misconduct.?].) In reviewing these competing declarations, the court finds the Dantas and Tomlinson declarations more credible and that there was no jury misconduct, either by failing to follow jury instructions or concealing bias at the voir dire stage.
Because the Court finds no jury misconduct, the court need not determine whether there was resulting prejudice.
Excessive Damages
Upon consideration of all the guideposts and other relevant factors, discussed below, the court finds that the punitive damages award of $350,000 was excessive.
To determine whether a punitive damages award is excessive, the court must consider three guideposts: ?(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. The defendant’s financial condition also is an essential consideration for a court reviewing a punitive damages award under California law, and is a permissible consideration under the due process clause in determining the amount of punitive damages necessary to further the state’s legitimate interests in punishment and deterrence.? (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 543, 558 [internal quotes and citations omitted].)
With respect to the first and most important guidepost, the court considers ?[(1)] the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; [(2)] the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; [(3)] the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; [(4)] the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and [(5)] the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident.? (Id. at 559)
On balance, there appears to be an average degree of reprehensibility on the part of Defendant. The harm caused was more economic than physical. Defendant?s retaliatory conduct toward Plaintiff does not evince an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health and safety of others. While Plaintiff was financially vulnerable as she worked as a server for Defendant and earned minimum wage plus tips, there is no competent evidence of others suffering similar retaliation.? Finally, the jury found that the harm to Plaintiff was the result of intentional malice, oppression or fraud, as opposed to an accident.
With respect to the second guidepost, it appears to the court that the punitive damages to compensatory damages ratio of 11.5 to 1 is somewhat unreasonably disproportionate. As to the third guidepost, Defendant urges the court to consider the penalties under 29 USC ? 216. Defendant?s comparison between the $10,000 fine and $350,000 punitive damages award, however, ignores the fact that Defendant could have been subject to up to 6 months imprisonment. (See BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 583 [permissible to compare to criminal penalties that could be imposed].)
In addition to the above guideposts, the defendant?s financial condition can also be considered. A state?s legitimate interests in punishment and deterrence ?are not served if the amount awarded is so small in relation to the defendant’s wealth as to constitute only a nuisance or a routine cost of doing business.? (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at 570.)
Here, the parties stipulated that Defendant had $10 million in assets. This factor supports a finding of reasonableness of the $350,000 award; however, it may not supplant the court?s consideration of the three guideposts discussed above. On the other hand, Defendant?s request that punitive damages be limited to $30,500 is unpersuasive in light of his financial condition. Such a small amount would not appear sufficient to deter future conduct.
?
Insufficiency of the evidence or the verdict is against law
Because the Court finds that the punitive damages award was excessive, it also finds that the amount of the award is not supported by the evidence or is against the law.? 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(a)(2); Schelbauer v. Butler Mfg. Co. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 442, 454.) Here, the court finds that a punitive damages award of $175,000 (a ratio of slightly less than 6 to 1 in terms of punitive damages to compensatory damages) is fair and reasonable and, on that basis, will deny the motion for new trial if Plaintiff consents to a reduction of the punitive damages award to $175,000 on or before June 30, 2016.