Amount In Controversy In Lawsuit Challenging Arbitration Award Includes The Full Matter At Stake In The Arbitration
Some litigants believe the best defense is a good offense. However, the Seventh Circuit recently confirmed that a "good offense" does not include filing a separate lawsuit seeking a stay of the first.
In Buntrock v. SEC, No. 03-1890, 2003 WL 22442993 (7th Cir. Oct. 29, 2003), the SEC authorized its legal staff to bring a civil complaint in federal court against Dean Buntrock charging him with violations of federal securities laws. Buntrock filed his own lawsuit against the SEC, seeking to stay the SEC's filing of a case against him; when the SEC actually filed its case (Buntrock had not sought an injunction), Buntrock amended his complaint to seek a stay of the SEC's case. Both cases were consolidated, and on the SEC's motion the court dismissed Buntrock's case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal because Buntrock's case had "no basis in law or common sense." The jurisprudence of federal jurisdiction includes a line of cases holding that a plaintiff's case might be so completely frivolous that it does not even trigger the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The Seventh Circuit found this to be such a case. One reason for disallowing such a tactic is that defendant's approach would "turn every case in which there is a defense into two cases." The rules of federal procedure provide litigants with the opportunity to present their defenses in a single action. Put simply, if you have a defense to a plaintiff's claims, you must plead it in the case plaintiff has filed.
Another, more technical, approach is that Buntrock has an adequate remedy at law -- to interpose his defense in the SEC's case -- and is unable to satisfy the prerequisites for equitable relief, i.e., a stay. While Buntrock argued that his remedy was not adequate because he would have to go through a whole trial, and the purpose of his complaint was to prevent that, the Seventh Circuit held that did not render his remedy inadequate as a matter of law.
In the wake of its decision in State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 123 S. Ct. 1513 (2003), regarding the due process limits on awards of punitive damages, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted 10 petitions for writ of certiorari and summarily vacated and remanded the cases for further consideration to a variety of state and federal courts.
The two most recent of those rulings are Philip Morris USA v. Williams, No. 02-1553, 2003 WL 21020159 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2003); and Chrysler Corp. v. Clark, No. 02-1748, 2003 WL 21313765 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2003). Philip Morris USA involved an Oregon case in which the jury had awarded over $79.5 million in punitive damages, which the judge reduced to $32 million. The appellate court had affirmed in 2002, allowing punitive damages with a ratio of more than 60:1. In Chrysler Corp., the Sixth Circuit had affirmed a jury award of $3 million in a products liability case where compensatory damages were $236,000 (more than 12:1). The Supreme Court's order suggests that even low awards are constitutionally suspect if the ratio to compensatory damages exceeds a single-digit number.
The other vacated cases are:
• Cass v. Stephens, [02-983] 123 S.Ct. 2213 (May 27, 2003), vacating No. 08-97-00582-CV, 2001 WL 28092 (Tex. App. 8th Dist. Jan. 11, 2001) (25 times compensatory damages after remittitur)
• Ford Motor Co. v. Ramon Romo, [02-1097] 123 S.Ct. 2072 (May 19, 2003), vacating 99 Cal.App.4th 1115, 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 139 (5th Dist. 2002) (46.4 times original compensatory damages, or 58.6 times reduced compensatory damages)
• Ford Motor Co. v. Smith, [02-1096] 123 S.Ct. 2072 (May 19, 2003), vacating 83 S.W.3d 483 (Ky 2002) (reducing award of 6.7 times compensatory damages to 5 times compensatory damages)
• DeKalb Genetics Corp. v. Bayer CropScience, S.A., [02-130] 123 S.Ct. 1828 (Apr. 21, 2003), vacating 272 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (3.33 times compensatory damages)
• National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Textron Financial Corp., [02-966] 123 S.Ct. 1783 (Apr. 21, 2003), vacating No. G020323, 2002 WL 1399105 (Cal. App. 4th Dist.
June 28, 2002) (10.2 times compensatory damages after remittitur)
• San Paolo U. S. Holding Co., Inc. v. Simon, [01-1722] 123 S.Ct. 1828 (Apr. 21, 2003), vacating No. B121917, 2001 WL 1380836 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Nov. 7, 2001) (340 times compensatory damages)
• Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Edwards, [02-342] 123 S.Ct. 1781 (Apr. 21, 2003), vacating Bocci v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 178 Or.App. 42, 35 P.3d 1106 (2002) (45
times compensatory damages)
• Anchor Hocking, Inc. v. Waddill, [02-370] 123 S.Ct. 1781 (Apr. 21, 2003), vacating 175 Or.App. 294, 27 P.3d 1092 (2002) (9.9 times compensatory damages)
Of those ten cases, three have been decided on remand. The DeKalb court has reconsidered its
original decision and held that the award of $50 million in punitive damages was not unconstitutional under State Farm when compared with the $15 million in compensatory damages awarded (a ratio of 3.33:1). Rhone-Poulenc Agro, S.A. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 345 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2003). In Key Pharmaceuticals, the punitive damages award was vacated and remanded with instructions to allow defendants' motion for a new trial unless plaintiff agreed to remittitur of punitive damages to $3.5 million, down from $22.5 million. The remittitur would result in a ratio of 7:1, down from 45:1. Bocci v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 189 Or.App. 349, 76 P.3d 669 (Sept. 10, 2003). In the Anchor Hocking case, the appellate court ordered a new trial unless plaintiff agreed to remittitur of punitive damages to $403,416, down from $1 million. The reduction would yield a ratio of 4:1 instead of 9.9:1. Anchor Hocking, Inc. v. Waddill, 190 Or.App. 172, 2003 WL 22404943 (Oct. 22, 2003).
Offer of Judgment Did Not Include Attorney’s Fees Where Plaintiff Was Not Prevailing Party Under State Law
No Federal Diversity Jurisdiction Exists Over Complaint For Equitable Relief If Value Of Relief Sought Cannot Be Determined
Ninth Circuit Establishes Procedures For Obtaining Access To Documents Under Protective Order In A Different Case
The bill's sponsor stated: "In sum, the Act provides additional benefits for businesses choosing to domicile in Delaware. It seeks to keep Delaware ahead-of-the curve in meeting the evolving needs of businesses, thus strengthening the ability of the State to convince such businesses to incorporate and locate operations here. Notably, all elements of the Act only increase the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to handle matters in situations involving parties who have agreed that Chancery is the forum that should resolve their dispute; that is, the Act does not compel any party that has not agreed to Chancery’s jurisdiction to submit to it, unless pre-existing law would enable Chancery to hear the case."
Click here for a copy of Delaware's press release on this new measure.
In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court also has approved changes to rules of civil procedure and evidence governing jury instructions and the use of masters. These amended rules are Fed.R.Civ.P. 51, 53, 54 and 74A, and Fed.R.Evid. 608(b). Absent Congressional action, all of these changes will take effect on December 1, 2003 in pending cases, unless not “just and practicable,” as well as in all new cases.
Click here to see the changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in non-redline and redline form with commentary, and here to see the changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence in non-redline and redline form with commentary.