§ 11.01 Damages

 

[1] Compensatory, Punitive, and Nominal Damages

 

Three types of money damages are available in civil actions:

(1) compensatory – which compensate a party “to make him whole” following injury by the defendant;

(2) punitive – which serve to punish the defendant for conduct that is reprehensible;

(3) nominal – which may be awarded upon a finding for the plaintiff when actual harm suffered is either insignificant or impossible to prove.

 

There is no constitutionally set maximum ratio of punitive to compensatory damages but the fact finder’s discretion to set punitive damages is not unfettered. Due process requires that a jury be given some measure of guidance in determining punitive damages, that an award of such damages be reasonable and not grossly excessive, and that there be opportunity for meaningful appellate review. [See TXO Prod. Co. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443 (1993); Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (1991)]

 

In BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), the Supreme Court held that the reasonableness of an award of punitive damages should be evaluated against:

• the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct;
• the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered and the award; and
• the difference between the punitive award and the penalties authorized or imposed in similar cases.

 

[2] Costs, Expenses, and Attorney’s Fees

 

Most complaints include court costs as part of the requested recovery.

 

The federal rules contain a number of expense-shifting mechanisms intended to compensate parties suffering from opponents’ litigation abuses and to provide a corresponding incentive for careful and restrained use of civil procedure, e.g., FRCP 21 (regarding the signing of pleadings, motions, and other court papers) and FRCP 37 (discovery abuses).

 

While attorney’s fees are not generally recoverable, certain forms of litigation justify such an award because the litigation is deemed sufficiently within the public interest to warrant shifting of attorney’s fees from the prevailing to the losing party as an incentive to suit. 

 

 

§ 11.02 Equitable Relief; Injunctions

 

Injunctions are court decrees which control the behavior of the defendant by ordering the defendant either to act or to refrain from acting in a certain way. The procedure for obtaining a final (permanent) injunction is a trial on the merits of the case much like that for a damages remedy. All procedural systems also provide for interlocutory injunctive relief.  In federal cases, FRCP 65 authorizes both temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.

 

 

§ 11.03 Declaratory Relief

 

Declaratory judgments determine rights and obligations but do not award remedies. Requests for declaratory judgments are thus sometimes made in tandem with requests for damages or injunctive relief. The real significance of the remedy, however, lies in situations where only declaratory relief is available, such as when a party anticipates suit against him/her and seeks to thwart such suit by seeking a favorable judicial determination of the issue underlying the prospective claim.

 

Under federal law, declaratory judgments are only available in cases of actual, not hypothetical, controversy. [Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201]  An actual controversy is one which is “definite and concrete . . . admitting of an immediate and definitive determination of the legal rights of the parties in an adversary proceeding upon the facts alleged.” [Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937)] 

 

Even when the prerequisites for a declaratory judgment are satisfied, federal and many state courts have considerable discretion to withhold the remedy. Reasons for doing so include inability of the declaratory judgment to end the controversy, the public interest in delaying suit, and existence of a pending and related action.

 

FRCP 57 extends coverage of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to cases under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Thus, parties to a declaratory judgment action have a right to a jury trial, if that right would have existed for a trial of the underlying issue(s).