|
|
Lindberg v. California Dep't of Education10/31/2005
th the economic and non-economic damages awards as pecuniary amounts reasonably certain to be sustained in the future.
Lindberg's counsel gave an impassioned argument telling the jury that, as a result of defendants' wrongful conduct, Lindberg was forced to live on essentially half the income he otherwise would have earned: "Now, with respect to the economic damages, Dr. Hancock, where did he come up with those numbers? The W-2's. Defendants brought in their own expert from PERS. What numbers did she have? Same exact ones. . . . What does all that prove? It proves Mr. Lindberg now makes substantially less on his pension confirmed by PERS . . . . He's living on half of what he would have made, and he was knocked out of his position just because he got in the way. . . . Getting him out of the way caused him severe damage." (Italics added.)
The amount of non-economic damages awarded by the jury was a staggering $3.5 million: $750,000 as to CDE for the Labor Code section 1102.5 violation and $962,500 as to CDE, $1,375,000 as to Eastin and $412,500 as to Polster on the Government Code section 8547.8 violation. Under the circumstances, it is highly probable that the jury compensated Lindberg not only for pain, suffering and emotional distress suffered up until the date of trial, but to be suffered by him in the future as the result of losing his job and being forced to live on a reduced income.
It is unnecessary for us to decide whether the non-economic damages award was excessive as a matter of law, or that the amount was "`"so grossly disproportionate as to raise a presumption that it is the result of passion or prejudice."'" (Schroeder v. Auto Driveaway Co. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 908, 919.) It is sufficient that we find that the unsupportable economic damages award so affected the total damages awarded that it is "`reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.'" (Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 780, 800, quoting People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)
Here, the instructions on economic and non-economic damages awards were each based on projections into the future. Since the economic damages award was based on the unsupported predicate that Lindberg would have continued working for nine more years, it is clear to us the non-economic award was likely affected by that invalid yardstick as well. Thus, our reversal of the economic damages award, for lack of evidentiary support, requires reversal of the entire compensatory damages award. (See Ramona Manor Convalescent Hospital v. Care Enterprises (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1120, 1140.)
X. Attorney Fees
After entry of judgment, Lindberg moved for and was granted an award of attorney fees in the sum of $573,316.50, pursuant to Government Code section 8547.8, subdivision (c). In making its award, the trial court used a lodestar multip
Page 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 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|