861 F. Supp. 2d 587
D. Maryland2012Background
- Jury awarded Wallace and Georgiana Wallace $3,003,001 after December 27, 2007 incident involving Montgomery County officers Barr and Poulos during service of a TPO.
- Disputed facts: officers testified Wallace violated the TPO; Wallace claimed officers assaulted him, and Poulos carried Georgiana out of the home.
- Georgiana was custody-plaintiff’s daughter; Wallace had sole custody; Upson obtained a DC TPO and attempted to pick up Georgiana.
- Officers’ versions: Poulos read TPO in garage; Wallace allegedly blocked; Georgiana taken to Upson; Wallace arrested for alleged TPO violation.
- Wallace’s arrest record and custody dispute later influenced trial; post-trial motions sought equitable relief, new trial/remittitur, and limited post-judgment discovery.
- Court denied equitable relief and granted in-part the defendants’ motion for new trial/remittitur on punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation for Rule 50(b) review on assault claim | Plaintiffs preserved assault issue in Rule 50(a) and 50(b) pleadings. | Defendants lacked proper preservation for assault basis (tasering) in Rule 50(a). | Assault argument not preserved; no Rule 50(b) relief on assault. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Wallace battery and Georgiana battery | Evidence supported battery for Wallace arrest and Georgiana removal. | Reasonable jurors could find lawful justification or lack of contact. | Battery claims denied as to Wallace and Georgiana based on record viewed favorably to defendants. |
| Equitable relief to expunge Wallace’s arrest | Expungement should be available in Maryland state courts. | Expungement must proceed in state court per Maryland procedure. | Expungement denied; Maryland procedure controls. |
| Punitive damages due process and remedy | Jury awards were constitutionally permissible or should be remitted. | Awards are grossly excessive and violate due process; remittitur/new trial warranted. | Punitive damages unconstitutional; awards reduced to specified maximums; remittitur/new trial conditional. |
Key Cases Cited
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (three guideposts for punitive damages due process review)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (guides reasonableness and deterrence in punitive awards)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (standard for judgment as a matter of law on insufficient evidence)
- Larez v. Holcomb, 16 F.3d 1513 (9th Cir. 1994) (indemnification/punitive damages proof; tempering impact on jury verdicts)
- Price v. City of Charlotte, 93 F.3d 1241 (4th Cir. 1996) (preservation requirements for Rule 50(a) to support Rule 50(b))
- Atlas Food Sys. & Servs., Inc. v. Crane Nat'l Vendors, Inc., 99 F.3d 587 (4th Cir. 1996) (remittitur and new trial considerations in damages)