118 So. 3d 844
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant R.J. Reynolds appeals a remitted punitive damages judgment of $20 million in an Engle progeny case.
- Reynolds argues the trial court erred by denying a new-trial on damages and by permitting a remittitur without allowing both parties to object as provided by 768.74(4) and Mora.
- Townsend I instructed remittitur with an option to object or accept, which the trial court limited to Appellee.
- The court finds Reynolds waived these objections under waiver and the law of the case because Reynolds did not raise the issue on rehearing and Mora predated Townsend I.
- The court rejects Reynolds’ federal due-process challenge, finding the remittitur ratio of 1.85 to 1 within permissible bounds per Townsend I.
- The court affirms the $20 million remitted punitive damages award and notes the unreduced compensatory-damages benchmark from Townsend I remains controlling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remittitur procedure compliance | Reynolds | Townsend I required both parties to accept or reject remittitur or seek a new trial; Mora controls | Waived; remittitur affirmed |
| Federal due-process challenge to remittitur amount | Reynolds | Remittitur ratio within Townsend I range | No due-process violation |
| Law-of-the-case effect on remittitur procedure | Reynolds | Law of the case not controlling | Law of the case governs; affirm |
| Right to object under Mora with Townsend I mandate | Reynolds | Townsend I mandate satisfied; Mora not controlling for reversal | No reversal; entitlement to objection preserved was not available at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Waste Management, Inc. v. Mora, 940 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 2006) (establishes right to object to remittitur amount)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend, 90 So.3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (remittitur procedure and right to new trial; authority for Townsend I context)
- Brunner Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 452 So.2d 550 (Fla.1984) (law-of-the-case doctrine: generally binding after highest court decisions)
- O.P. Corp. v. Village of North Palm Beach, 302 So.2d 130 (Fla.1974) (complementary view on ministerial acts following appellate mandates)
- Pensacola Beach Pier, Inc. v. King, 66 So.3d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (final-order error and preservation through timely motions)
- Lake Sarasota, Inc. v. PanAmerican Insurance Co., 140 So.2d 139 (Fla.2d DCA 1962) (requirement to preserve appellate arguments regarding trial orders)
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2006) (context for Engle progeny and evidentiary issues)