On October 21, 2010 a federal court jury in Jackson rendered a plaintiff’s verdict of $300,000 in an alienation of affection case. Here is the Complaint in Ainsworth v. Gildea. The case settled before the jury could render a verdict on punitive damages.

Here is the jury’s verdict form.

Here is the Court’s order of dismissal.

Judy Barnett and Michael Malouf of Jackson represented the plaintiff. Jud Lee and Cynthia Speetjens of Madison represented the out-of-state defendant. Judge Dan Jordan was the trial judge.

I don’t really know the alleged facts and don’t care enough to try to find out. As previously noted, I am not a fan of the the alienation of affection cause of action.

My Take:

So much for the notion that there are not wing-nut verdicts in federal court. On a lighter note, I bet Judge Jordan never expected to preside over an alienation of affection trial when he was nominated and confirmed for the U.S. District Court. And I bet he didn’t mind that one bit. But even alienation of affection cases can be removed to federal court. No word yet on whether Judge Jordan will present on the cause of action at the next 5th  Circuit Judicial Conference. I’m betting not.

  • Defendant a Ph.D professor of psychology at Princeton. Also a recent 100,000 cheatin’ verdict in Tupelo recently.

  • Julien

    Looks like page 3 of the Complaint was put under seal or somesuch — it’s missing, and looks to have contained any salacious material that might’ve been present.

  • Rob

    how did the court have subject matter jurisdiction without complete diversity? Miss. residents on both sides.

  • Philip Thomas

    Defendant must have argued that the in-state defendants were fraudulently joined and removed the case to federal court.

  • Iowa did away with alienation of affection actions long ago; holing that love can not be stolen, if he or she is cheating there was something wrong long before the cheating act takes place. But your post is still a good one.