Fernandes v. Singh, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (2017)

Citation: Fernandes v. Singh, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (2017)
Parent Document: Fernandes v. Singh, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (2017)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2017-10-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6239155/fernandes-v-singh/ ↗

Full Text

1,134 chars

The punitive damages award was just under four times the compensatory damages award (350,000/87,894 = 3.982). Our Supreme Court has held punitive damages *760should rarely exceed a single-digit multiplier. (See Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 363, 367, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 23, 371 P.3d 242 ["Absent special justification, ratios of punitive damages to compensatory damages that greatly exceed 9 or 10 to 1 are presumed to be excessive"]; Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1159, 1181-1183, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 379, 113 P.3d 63.) The high court has stated "an award of more than four times the amount of compensatory damages might be close to the line of constitutional impropriety." ( *944State Farm Mut. Ins. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408, 425, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 1524, 155 L.Ed.2d 585, 606, italics added.) The ratio in this case was below that suggested line, and therefore is not facially infirm. (See Izell v. Union Carbide Corp. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 962, 984, 988, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 382 [upholding punitive damage award reflecting a 4.62 to one ratio compared to the compensatory award].)

Other Sections in This Document (61)

Full Text