Pearl v. City of L. A.
248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 508
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- James Pearl, an African‑American City of Los Angeles sanitation supervisor, sued under FEHA for harassment, failure to prevent harassment, and retaliation based on perceived sexual orientation after coworkers and some managers circulated a digitally altered image and used homophobic slurs; he was suspended, terminated, later reinstated, and suffered severe physical and psychiatric injuries (malignant hypertension, AFib, brain injury, major depression) tied to workplace stress.
- Jury returned a special verdict awarding $450,053 past economic, $1,944,919 future economic, $10,000,000 past noneconomic, and $5,000,000 future noneconomic damages (total ~$17.4M).
- City moved for a new trial and JNOV, arguing damages were excessive and the verdict was infected by passion, prejudice, and improper argument; it did not object at trial to omission of CACI No. 3924 (instructing jurors not to award punitive damages) nor to counsel’s "send a message" comments.
- Trial court found past noneconomic award ($10M) reflected punitive sentiment (manager perjury and inflammatory closing) and conditionally granted a new trial unless Pearl accepted remittitur reducing past noneconomic damages by $5M; Pearl accepted and the amended judgment was entered for ~$12.4M.
- Court of Appeal affirmed, reviewing the trial court’s use of remittitur under CCP §662.5 for abuse of discretion and emphasizing the trial court’s role as independent factfinder when ruling on excessive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by using remittitur (conditional denial of new trial) rather than ordering a new trial when punitive sentiments infected the verdict | Remittitur proper: trial court, as independent factfinder under CCP §662.5, may determine a fair compensatory amount and reduce excessive damages | Remittitur improper where verdict contained punitive component that cannot be separated from compensatory award; court should order new trial on damages | Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion to conditionally reduce past noneconomic damages; not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether City preserved claims about omitted instruction (CACI No. 3924) and improper closing argument for appeal | Omission and improper argument do not preclude remittitur review; but trial court considered closing misconduct in its decision | Forfeited at trial: City stipulated to instructions and did not object to closing; thus cannot raise them now | Held forfeited: City failed to object and stipulated to instructions; appellate challenge on those grounds not properly preserved |
| Whether $10M past noneconomic award was excessive/shocks the conscience | Pearl: noneconomic awards supported by undisputed medical/psych evidence linking harassment to catastrophic injuries; overall noneconomic award (past+future) reasonable | City: $10M (5× economic) is excessive, product of passion/prejudice and impermissible punishment of defendant | Held: Trial court reasonably reduced past noneconomic to $5M after weighing evidence; overall action to remit was supported and not an abuse of discretion |
| Proper scope of remittitur when jury award may include prohibited punitive elements | Trial court may separate and reduce excessive compensatory damages where supported by evidence and special verdict elements | Remittitur cannot be used to cure a "defective verdict" if punitive elements are inextricable from compensatory award | Held: Where damages can be ascertained (special verdict delineated components) remittitur is an appropriate remedy; Schelbauer (reapportionment limits) inapplicable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 21 Cal.3d 910 (trial court sits as independent factfinder and may conditionally remit damages)
- Sabella v. Southern Pac. Co., 70 Cal.2d 311 (remittitur proper when amount of damages can be ascertained from evidence)
- Schelbauer v. Butler Mfg. Co., 35 Cal.3d 442 (remittitur limited; cannot be used to reapportion liability)
- Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 56 Cal.2d 498 (standard for appellate review of excessive damages; trial court advantage in assessing damages)
- Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 159 Cal.App.4th 655 (trial court’s remittitur authority and role as factfinder on excessive damages)