Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00505/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00505-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY COSBY,

NO. CIV. S-08-505 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

AUTOZONE, INC., JIM KULBACKI

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

On January 10, 2012, the court issued an order in the abovecaptioned case: (1) remitting the economic damage award for

Plaintiff from $174,000 to $4,917.60; (2) remitting the noneconomic damage award for Plaintiff from $1,326,000 to $250,000.00;

and (3) denying Plaintiff’s request for additur to the punitive

damage award. Order, ECF No. 172. The court also ordered

Plaintiff, within twenty-one days of the filing of the order, to

inform the court in writing as to whether he consents to the

remitted damages award, seeks a new trial, or plans to appeal the

1

Case 2:08-cv-00505-KJM-DAD Document 174 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

remittitur. Id. 

On January 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for

clarification of the court’s January 10, 2012 order. Pl’s Req.,

ECF No. 173. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks a hearing or ruling

from this court providing clarification as to the following

questions: (1) “If Plaintiff elects a new trial rather than

remittitur, must Plaintiff present evidence that his termination

was caused by Defendant’s failure to accommodate?” and (2) “Can

Plaintiff accept remittitur of the non-economic damages and elect

a new trial on punitive damages only?”. Id. at 1-2. 

As to Plaintiff’s first question, the court refers to the

Ninth Circuit’s finding that:

In the event Mr. Cosby refuses remittitur, a new

trial will go only to the issue of damages. The

issues of liability and damages are distinct, and

there is no evidence in the record–-and neither

party contends–-that any passion or prejudice

affected the jury’s verdict on liability. 

Cosby v. AutoZone, Inc., 2011 WL 3267704, at *2 (9th Cir. Aug. 1,

2011). Thus, because the Ninth Circuit specifically provided that

a new trial would go only to the issue of damages, upon electing

a new trial, Plaintiff will not be required to present evidence

that his termination was caused by Defendant’s failure to

accommodate. 

As to Plaintiff’s second question, the court has stated that

“the new trial will address Plaintiff’s economic, non-economic, and

punitive damage awards.” Order, ECF No. 172, at 7. Plaintiff may

either accept the remitted damages award as a whole, including the

2

Case 2:08-cv-00505-KJM-DAD Document 174 Filed 01/25/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

economic, non-economic, and punitive damage awards as remitted in

the January 10, 2012 order, or Plaintiff may elect a new trial on

the issue of damages as a whole, including economic, non-economic,

and punitive damage awards. Plaintiff may not accept remittitur of

the non-economic damages and elect a new trial on punitive damages

only. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 24, 2012.

3

Case 2:08-cv-00505-KJM-DAD Document 174 Filed 01/25/12 Page 3 of 3