Opinion ID: 2570318
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellate Determination versus Remittitur

Text: Our review of the BMW/State Farm guideposts, even in light of California's interest in punishing and deterring fraudulent conduct, leads to the conclusion that the jury's award of $1.7 million in punitive damages is grossly excessive. The Court of Appeal erred in holding to the contrary. We could end our discussion here and remand to the Court of Appeal for that court to reduce the award to the constitutionally allowed maximum. But because this litigation has already lasted more than eight years, a process so far including two trips to the United States Supreme Court and three decisions by the Court of Appeal, we believe the better course is for this court itself to determine the maximum punitive damages award that satisfies the constraints of due process and to order the judgment reduced accordingly. Moreover, we agree with San Paolo Holding that the appropriate order is for an absolute reduction, rather than a conditional reduction with the alternative of a new trial, i.e., a remittitur. As constitutional excessiveness is a legal issue appellate courts determine independently ( State Farm, supra, 538 U.S. at p. 418, 123 S.Ct. 1513; Cooper Industries, supra, 532 U.S. at pp. 436-443, 121 S.Ct. 1678), we do not, in determining the maximum constitutional award ourselves, decide any question of fact plaintiff has a right to have decided by a jury. ( Johansen v. Combustion Engineering, Inc. (11th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 1320, 1331 ( Johansen ) [Plaintiffs consent is irrelevant if the Constitution requires the reduction]; Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc., supra, 285 F.3d at p. 1151 [following Johansen: [A]n appellate court need not remand for a new trial in every case in which it finds that a punitive damages award exceeds the constitutional maximum.... We therefore will determine the constitutional maximum on the basis of the existing record]; see, e.g., Bardis v. Oates, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at pp. 26-27, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 89 [Court of Appeal reduced punitive damages award to due process limit and affirmed as modified, without offering the plaintiff a new trial alternative].) Once a maximum constitutional award has been determined, moreover, a new trial on punitive damages would be futile. Giving a plaintiff the option of a new trial rather than accepting the constitutional maximum for this case would be of no value. If, on a new trial, the plaintiff was awarded punitive damages less than the constitutional maximum, he would have lost. If the plaintiff obtained more than the constitutional maximum, the award could not be sustained. Thus, a new trial provides only a `heads the defendant wins; tails the plaintiff loses' option. ( Johansen, supra, 170 F.3d at p. 1332, fn. 19.)