Case Notes: Damages

• » Media General, Inc. v. Tomlin
  532 F.3d 854 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated a grant of summary judgment to defendants on fraud claims, finding that the defendants made material misrepresentations in connection with the plaintiff’s purchase of their company and that the plaintiff’s failure to ask for written verification of the facts didn’t excuse the defendants’ conduct; however, it rejected as speculative a damages theory that the plaintiff would have insisted on a $10 million reduction in the purchase price had it been fully informed.
• » Griffith v. Barnes
  560 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2008)
  The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered a default judgment against the defendants, who engaged in unfair trade practices in fraudulently taking title to the plaintiff’s property, and imposed punitive damages.
• » M. Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA | 
  319 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2004)
  The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the FDA’s motion to dismiss a Federal Tort Claims Act suit that alleged, inter alia, that the FDA had disclosed the plaintiff’s trade secrets. The court found that the actions that caused the disclosure fell within the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception and thus that the FDA was immune from suit for its disclosures.
• » Campbell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co | 
  2004 UT 34, 498 Utah Adv., Rep. 23
  In determining punitive damages courts must apply United States Supreme Court due process principles but still have discretion in determining the proper amount to address the state’s legitimate interests in assessing reprehensibility of conduct.