445 F. App'x 914
9th Cir.2011Background
- Cosby, a California employee, sued AutoZone in a diversity action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
- A jury found AutoZone liable for two FEHA claims: failure to provide reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in the interactive process.
- The jury awarded $174,000 for lost wages and benefits and $1,326,000 for past non-economic damages, with no punitive damages.
- AutoZone moved for a new trial or remittitur; the district court denied the motion.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, remanding for remittitur with the option of a new trial on damages.
- The court applied state-law standards for excessiveness of damages and reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion denying remittitur. | Cosby argues damages were excessive given the evidence. | AutoZone contends damages were properly supported or within discretion. | Remittitur with possible new trial on damages required. |
| Whether the economic damages award was excessive. | Cosby asserts up to $4,917.60 is justified as economic loss. | AutoZone contends the award was supported by the record. | Remittitur limited to $4,917.60. |
| Whether the non-economic damages award was excessive under California law. | Cosby argues emotional distress warranted substantial damages given harassment and impairment. | AutoZone contends evidence supports the award and causal link to accommodation failure. | Remittitur required with explicit justification tied to trial evidence. |
| Whether liability and damages issues are separate for purposes of remittitur/new trial. | Cosby asserts that liability findings are unaffected and damages should be retried only. | AutoZone agrees liability stands, but damages should be revised or retried. | Liability and damages are separable; remittitur/new trial on damages appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- DSPT Int’l, Inc. v. Nahum, 624 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial/remittitur orders)
- Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) (review of excessiveness of awards; state-law standards apply in diversity cases)
- Behr v. Redmond, 123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 97 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (sufficiency of evidence required for damages; appellate review of awards)
- Young v. Bank of America, 190 Cal. Rptr. 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (emotional distress requires substantial or enduring injury)
- Watec Co. v. Liu, 403 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2005) (liability and damages separate; standard on remittitur/new trial)
- Seffert v. L.A. Transit Lines, 364 P.2d 337 (Cal. 1961) (deferential standard: verdict not shockingly out of line)