ELR Citation: ELR 20157
No(s). 87-3876 (D.N.J. Sep 5, 1989)

The court reaffirms its earlier ruling that repetitive punitive damages awards for the same wrongful conduct in asbestos cases violate a defendant's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court first holds that the local rule for reconsideration, rather than the federal rules of civil procedure, applies to the court's earlier nonfinal order denying punitive damages. In the earlier action, the court held that punitive damages claims would be stricken against any defendant that could demonstrate that it had paid a prior punitive damages award for the same alleged wrongful conduct. Notwithstanding its earlier conclusion that repetitive punitive damages awards may have violated defendants' due process rights, the court next denies defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' punitive damages claims. The court lacks the power to prospectively implement its prior ruling and to prohibit subsequent awards in other courts. Moreover, a second punitive damages award may not violate the due process clause if the jury's first award did not constitute full punishment for the defendant's wrongful conduct. The court observes in a footnote that a national uniform solution is needed to place mass tort punitive damages suits in one federal forum and to protect the defendants' due process rights.

[The court's earlier decision is published at 19 ELR 21067.]

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Jane B. Cantor, Francis A. Tomes
Garruto, Galex & Cantor
P.O. Box 308, 14 Old Bridge Tpk., East Brunswick NJ 08816
(201) 214-1800

Counsel for Defendants
John J. Catino
Budd, Larner, Gross, Rosenbaum, Greenberg & Sade, P.C.
150 John F. Kennedy Pkwy., CN 1000, Short Hills NJ 07078-0999
(201) 379-4800

Andrew T. Berry
McCarter & English
Four Gateway Ctr., 100 Mulberry St., Newark NJ 07102-4096
(201) 622-4444