Final Flashcards
(42 cards)
Punitive Damages
Punish the wrongdoers and deter future wrongdoings.
Punitive Damages (extent of liability)
Majority: Companies and employers may be liable for their employee’s punitive damages if they exercised some managerial discretion;
Minority: Simply where the employee was acting in the course and scope of their employment
Procedural due process challenges to punitive damages
Focus on whether defendants are being punished for injury to absent plaintiffs without process to challenge their individual harms.
Substantive due process challenges to punitive damages focus on
Whether the award is “grossly excessive,” the guideposts for which are:
(1) degree of reprehensibility,
(2) ratio of compensatory to punitives, and
(3) sanctions for comparable misconduct.
Constitutional review of punitive damages awards
Reviewed de novo; at common law it is for abuse of discretion, the standard of view for a new trial or refusal to grant a new trial.
Rules of Unconscionability
Substantive factors:
(1) cost-price disparity;
(2) denial of basic rights or remedies; [fundamental unfairness] (3) penalty clauses;
(4) inconspicuous disadvantageous clauses;
(5) confusing phrasing for disadvantageous clauses;
(6) overall imbalance in the rights of the parties [unfair provisions].
Procedural factors:
(1) inequality of bargaining power; (2) exploitation of underprivileged or uneducated;
(3) contracts of adhesion;
(4) circumstances of its execution.
In pari delicto (equal fault)
Available only where:
(1) as a direct result of P’s actions, P bears at least substantially equal responsibility for the violations he seeks to redress, and
(2) preclusion of suit would not significantly interfere with the effective enforcement of the securities laws and protection of the investing public.
Use the specific rule enunciated in Pinter for in pari delicto if you see a specific wrongdoing that violates a particular statutory or regulatory scheme public law.
Unclean hands
An equitable defense that comes from the equitable maxim and is broadly “any wrongful conduct that relates to the underlying transaction.”
Use unclean hands every where you see a more general wrongdoing by a plaintiff private law as long as the wrongdoing relates generally to the plaintiff’s underlying claim.
Equitable estoppel Requires (4)
(1) An act or a statement
(2) inconsistent with a later-asserted right that is
(3) Reasonably relied upon
(4) to the detriment of the other party
Laches
Applies where there is:
(1) unreasonable delay; and
(2) prejudice.
- To determine whether the delay is unreasonable, courts consider justification for the delay, the extent of plaintiff’s advanced warning for the basis of its challenge, and whether plaintiff exercised diligence in
pursuing its claim(s). - To determine prejudice to defendant, courts consider prejudice from the delay in bringing the suit not
from the suit itself.
Waiver
(1) Knowledge of an unchallenged breach renders the non-breaching party unable to later claim damages for that breach. (In that regard, it is more broadly…)
(2) The intentional relinquishment of a known right.
Injunctions
Court orders for an act be done or not be done. When an injunction prohibits a change in the status quo it’s called prohibitory; when it mandates a change it’s called mandatory.
Injunctions will not issue unless the legal remedy (usually money damages) is inadequate.
Three types and times injunctions may be issued:
(1) Temporary Restraining Orders (almost always in connection with ex parte relief).
(2) Preliminary Injunctions
(3) Permanent Injunctions
Party seeking an injunction must show:
(1) More than threatened injury is remote or speculative;
(2) Must be likely and established.
(3) Must show more than irreparable injury
(4) Must show there is real danger the acts to be enjoined will occur (i.e., “a substantial or realistic threat”).
Contempt (4)
Violations of injunctions are contempt of court:
(1) Criminal, where the court refers a willing violation to the prosecutor.
(2) Compensatory civil, where the court awards money damages after the plaintiff prosecutes the contempt proceeding.
(3) Coercive civil, where the court threatens specific conditional penalties to coerce a defendant into obedience.
(4) Imprisonment until compliance, imprisonment as punishment, compensation for past offenses, and various issue or litigation sanctions.
Nationwide Injunctions
Nationwide injunctions against unlawful conduct must be:
(1) based on a policy; or
(2) practice which extends beyond the specific plaintiff or location at issue.
Nationwide injunctions (NI) are controversial and subject to constitutional attack.
Pro NI - Article III does not define the “the judicial Power.” That is, it merely gives the metes and bounds of the disputes in which that power may be exercised. Thus the Constitution does not limit the remedial powers of the federal courts. Subject to regulations and exceptions made by Congress, the federal courts may develop and refine their remedial powers over time. The national injunction is simply an evolution of the judicial power, and as such it should be judged on grounds of coherence and fit.
Con NI - Article III offers a concept of the judicial power that is defined by the dispute — a judicial resolution of a case or controversy brought by parties. This is why we have standing doctrines, do not allow advisory opinions, and distinguish between opinions and judgments (only the latter of which bind the parties).
Enjoining a Statute
Three part rule (Ayotte v. PP) relied on:
(1) limit solution to the problem and do not nullify more of a statute than is necessary; but
(2) salvage but do not rewrite statutes—if its meaning is uncertain, however, the court may need to enjoin the entire amount; and
(3) look to legislative intent as to whether to sever an unconstitutional part of the statute. If the legislature thinks it is not severable then courts should defer to that intent.
Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order must:
(1) State the reasons why it issued
(2) State its terms specifically; and
(3) Describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to the complaint or other
document—the act or acts retrained or required.
Whether Ps met their burden of irreparable harm?
Plaintiffs must show more than threatened injury is remote or speculative. It must be likely and established. The party seeking an injunction must show more than irreparable injury, they must show there is real danger the acts to be enjoined will occur (i.e., “a substantial or realistic threat”). (Almurbati)
Violations of injunctions are contempt of court. Contempt can be (4):
(1) Criminal, where the court refers a willing violation to the prosecutor.
(2) Compensatory civil, where the court awards money damages after the plaintiff prosecutes the contempt proceeding.
(3) Coercive civil, where the court threatens specific conditional penalties to coerce a defendant into obedience.
(4) Imprisonment until compliance, imprisonment as punishment, compensation for past offenses, and various issue or litigation sanctions.
Nationwide Injunctions
Nationwide injunctions against unlawful conduct must be based on a policy or practice which extends beyond the specific plaintiff or location at issue. (Goodyear)
Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order must (3):
(1) State the reasons why it issued
(2) State its terms specifically; and
(3) Describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to the complaint or other
document—the act or acts retrained or required.
Is an injunction request moot if the defendant only stopped the illegal activity in response to a lawsuit?
Injunction rendered moot if “there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.” The burden is on the defendant to show that will be the case. A mere possibility will not result in injunction. Some cognizable injury will.
