Opinion
Cause No. 2:00cv0244 AS
October 9, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This Court conducted proceedings with counsel present in Lafayette, Indiana on October 7, 2002. As a follow up to those proceedings, the plaintiff's motion to amend judgment filed September 6, 2002, is DENIED.
This Court takes up the defendant's motion for a new trial filed on September 4, 2002. The jury verdict on August 25, 2002 was in the sum of $750,000.00. Judgment was entered thereon on August 27, 200 and costs were assessed in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
The sole and only issue referred to by the defendant in its motion and memorandum filed on September 4, 2002 has to do with the issue of excessiveness of the $750,000.00 verdict. The Court is guided by Rule 59(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and does take note of the entire record in this case, including the evidence heard during the trial before the jury under the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. This Court is never anxious to interfere with the fact-finding processes of a civil jury under the Seventh Amendment See Latino v. Kaizer, 58 F.3d 310 (7th Cir. 1995). See also Foster v. Continental Can Corp., 101 F.R.D. 710 (N.D. Ind. 1984) aff'd, 783 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1986).
This Court is also aware that one has to be careful and there is an object lesson to that effect in Bailey v. Andrews, 811 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1987). This Court is also well aware that under the evidence and instructions in this case, the award of damages is for compensatory damages only and not punitive. Punitive damages are clearly foreclosed in this instance against this defendant in his official capacity.
This Court has given very careful consideration to the analysis of the parties and particularly the argument advanced by the defendant in its Memorandum filed on September 4, 2002 culminating in a footnote of some significance on page six of that Memorandum. This Court also listened carefully to the oral argument of plaintiff's counsel at the aforesaid hearing and is keenly aware of the economic analysis required but is far less competent than many others to engage in that analysis. Not to be parochial, but it does appear to this Court that there is an abundance of relevant authority in this circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States to guide the decisional process in this case.
This Court must reluctantly conclude that the compensatory damage award is excessive under the evidence and instructions of the Court and must be reduced. This Court has decided upon the remittitur procedural device which is available.
This Court has here attempted to follow Hertzel v. Prince William County, Va., 523 U.S. 208 (1998) and Jabat, Inc. v. Smith, 201 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2000). Under the maximum recovery rule, the highest amount of damages the jury here could have properly awarded is $250,000.00. Therefore, a remittitur of $500,000.00 is ordered or a new trial limited to the issue of damages will be granted. The Court should be advised of the plaintiff's decision with regard to this at the earliest possible time. The issue of costs and attorney fees remains before the Court for further determination. IT IS SO ORDERED.