Supreme Court Rules in Caps Case that.....More Briefing Required!!!
I missed it. The Supreme Court issued an Order last week in the Sears v. Learmonth case where the Court is to decide whether Mississippi's cap on non-economic damages is constitutional. Here is the Court's September 15, 2011 Order.
The Order states that the Court is hung up on the fact that the verdict form did not separate economic and non-economic damages. The parties stipulated that the amount of non-economic damages was $2,218,905. The Order asks the parties to address:
"what fact(s) and/or legal authority exist for this Court to accept a stipulation regarding the amount of noneconomic damages found by the jury?"
Here is the final judgement in the District Court. It does not separate the damages.
This case came to the Court via certification on the caps issue from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Justice Michael Randolph issued the Court's Order.
My Take:
Sears' reply brief is due November 28, 2011; several weeks after the November elections. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.
But cynics should keep in mind that this is not the first time that the Court has focused on this specific issue. The Court mentioned that economic and non-economic damages should be separated on the verdict form in the InTown Suites decision that I wrote about in June here. In that case, the Court ruled that the defendant could not challenge the amount of non-economic damages on appeal because the verdict form did not separate economic and non-economic damages.
In this case, the record does not contain a verdict form that separates economic and non-economic damages. Under the InTown Suites case, the verdict should be affirmed without reaching the caps question. Except the parties stipulated the amount of damages that were economic and non-economic. That was a bad stipulation for somebody. I can't decide who.
The Court's request for more briefing on the stipulation makes sense based on the InTown Suites decision. This is all very interesting.
It would be funny if the Court answers the 5th Circuit's certification question by stating that the Court finds that under Mississippi law, the amount of non-economic damages can't be challenged when the verdict form does not separate economic and non-economic damages. Instead of answering the 5th Circuits question, the Court would answer its own question. Possible? Maybe.
Prior to InTown Suites, I would've said that the plaintiff is the one seeking the damages and the one with a duty to break out the damages in the verdict form.
Then the Court appeared to rule it was the defendant's responsibility, on grounds that I would politely describe as "underdetermined."
So who knows. There must be a lot of verdicts in the pipeline with undifferentiated awards.
I would suspect this curveball has both parties reconsidering their positions. Sears' chances of coming out on top appear significantly reduced. Nothing like a little added uncertainty to make parties reach a settlement.
why would it be the plaintiff's duty to break out the damages in the verdict form?
Isn't the validity of the stipulation a question of federal procedural law? I don't get this at all.
Oooh -- nice one, Chris.
But this would be the second time the Court failed to reach the caps issue. In Double-Quick, they were probably right to do so. But they need to decide it sooner or later; I hope they don't bend over backwards to avoid it.
Two Cents: because the plaintiff has the burden of proof? Anyway, don't ask me, the Court obviously disagreed with me.
Will someone please tell the Mississippi Supreme Court that an opinion about its waiver rules for state proceedings (that is, what is needed to raise and preserve the issue) is not going to answer the certified question??!?