DAVID NUFFER, District Judge.
In the Motion to Set Aside Verdict for Double Recovery,
Defendants also filed the Motion to Set Aside Verdict for Failure to Instruct and Improper Instruction or for Mistrial.
Both motions are DENIED for the reasons stated below.
"A basic principle of compensatory damages is that an injury can be compensated only once."
We cannot speculate on the basis for the jury's verdict. Regarding tortious interference for both Michael Smith and Northwest, the jury may have considered other agents of Northwest, e.g., Doug Smith, that tortiously interfered with First American's contracts: Michael Smith's breach of his fiduciary duty is the predicate improper means which enabled tortious interference by other agents of Northwest. A jury verdict should not be upset "on the basis of speculation."
Defendants also argue that the jury may have been confused by instruction 60. It stated
From that, the defendants argue that the jury must have understood that the court would pare down their damage award. However, the instruction only stated "the court may take action" to prevent double recovery. The form of the verdict assures no double recovery was granted.
Even though the jury assigned separate damage amounts for each cause of action, they also filled in the final line of the damages section: "The total amount of damages to be awarded to First American is $2,725,000."
The defendants filed a separate motion arguing that the jury was not instructed on the clear and convincing standard for making a finding of "willful and malicious, or in reckless indifference toward, and disregard of, the rights of First American."
Instruction No. 18 defines clear and convincing evidence. It concludes by stating
Defendants argue that because "willful and malicious, or in reckless indifference toward, and disregard of, the rights of First American" was "notable absent from this exhaustive, or exclusionary list" then the defendants were prejudiced.
However, each of the five questions on the verdict form relating to malice was prefaced by "Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that . . ."
Defendants argue that the evidence First American presented at trial is insufficient to justify punitive damages. Specifically, defendants argue that the "[p]laintiffs' claims for punitive damages are based on emails sent by Mike Smith and others after they had already been sued in this case."
Throughout the trial, First American referenced various emails sent by Mike Smith and others indicating their disdain for First American. These emails, though sent after litigation began, may be "probative of the defendant[s'] state of mind at the time of" the tortious behavior."
The Motion to Set Aside Verdict for Double Recovery
The Motion to Set Aside Verdict for Failure to Instruct and Improper Instruction or for Mistrial