(Doe v. Lee (May 13, 2022, No. C092065) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 489].)

After an appeal by attorneys Jay Christofferson, John Kinsey and Steven Vote, the Third Appellate District Court of Appeal vacated the punitive damages award as excessive and found it was not supported by substantial evidence. This award exceeded the appellant’s net worth and there was insufficient evidence to prove the appellant could pay it without becoming destitute. The amount of a punitive damages award varies from case to case, but the ratio of award to the defendant’s net worth rarely exceeds 30 percent, let alone close to 100 percent. Because this case represented the extreme end of an excessive punitive damage award, this decision helps to establish what must be considered for purposes of determining a punitive damage award.

(D.Z. v. L.B. (May 19, 2022, No. C093008) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 490].)

Jay Christofferson appealed a civil harassment restraining order based on two due process claims: First, that one appellant was disadvantaged by appearing via telephone when the other party appeared by video conference. Although the Third Appellate District Court of Appeal did not reverse on this point, the opinion offers analysis of virtual appearances necessitated by COVID-19 and the related consequences for due process rights. Second, WJH argued the inclusion of the appellant’s husband on the restraining order was improper because he was not a party originally identified in the petition, nor did he participate at trial. The Court found this was a violation of the spouse’s due process and reversed the restraining order to the extent it applied to the husband.