Opening Brief for Appellant/Cross-Appellee - Appellate.net

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Statutes TABLE OF CITATIONS ix Page 28 U.S.C. § 1291........................................................................................................2 28 U.S.C. § 1332........................................................................................................2 Other Authorities Abraham & Jeffries, Punitive Damages and the Rule of Law: The Role of the Defendant’s Wealth, 18 J. LEGAL STUD. 415 (1989)....................54
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is an appeal from a retrial that was limited to the question of liability for and amount of punitive damages. Plaintiff’s only claim is that, in the course of a five-minute meeting, defendants tortiously interfered with the relationship between plaintiff and several independent contractors that it employed on an at- will basis. The first jury awarded $109,000 in compensatory damages, an amount that fully compensated the plaintiff for all losses associated with that tortious interference. The second jury, after hearing an enormous amount of irrelevant and inflammatory evidence, awarded $30 million in punitive damages. The district court reduced the award to $2 million – a sum nearly twenty times the amount of compensatory damages. Even as reduced, the award is grossly and unconstitutionally excessive. As this Court held when this case was last before it, the defendant’s conduct in this case was barely even tortious. It cannot support more than a very small award of punitive damages – and certainly does not justify an amount that the Supreme Court has characterized as “tantamount to a severe criminal penalty.” BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 585 (1996). The judgment below must be vacated and the punitive award reduced to no more than the amount of compensatory damages.
Page 1 and 2: United States Court of Appeals for
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS ii Page CORPORATE
Page 5 and 6: Cases TABLE OF CITATIONS iv Page Al
Page 7 and 8: TABLE OF CITATIONS vi Page Kuznik v
Page 9: TABLE OF CITATIONS viii Page Superi
Page 13 and 14: Management, Inc., a subsidiary of S
Page 15 and 16: STATEMENT OF FACTS Facts Giving Ris
Page 17 and 18: On July 1, 1998, Sunrise executed a
Page 19 and 20: apparently informed Brillman, who c
Page 21 and 22: worked at the Pembrooke facility -
Page 23 and 24: way Sunrise has treated CGB since 1
Page 25 and 26: Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S.
Page 27 and 28: that appellate review of a trial co
Page 29 and 30: matters had nothing to do with the
Page 31 and 32: 1. Sunrise’s conduct was barely e
Page 33 and 34: educated and sophisticated business
Page 35 and 36: her therapists and extending to the
Page 37 and 38: 583 (1968) (holding that it is unco
Page 39 and 40: certainly had no bearing on the ret
Page 41 and 42: CGB to Symphony and simultaneously
Page 43 and 44: (id. at 419-20), “a punitive dama
Page 45 and 46: The courts - including this Court -
Page 47 and 48: and the harm resulted from intentio
Page 49 and 50: that punitive damages should not be
Page 51 and 52: minimal losses that CGB may have su
Page 53 and 54: compensatory damages were “substa
Page 55 and 56: million to $717,610, in a case in w
Page 57 and 58: In sum, if, contrary to our argumen
Page 59 and 60: damages he might have obtained on a
Page 61 and 62:
Supp. 254, 270 n.27 (E.D. Pa. 1977)
Page 63 and 64:
constraints on punitive damages.”
Page 65 and 66:
In sum, because Sunrise’s financi
Page 67 and 68:
the award’s size would thereby in
Page 69 and 70:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby cer
show all

Opening Brief for Appellant/Cross-Appellee - Appellate.net

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?