Attorney Search
Advocacy at a Higher Level

Horvitz & Levy is a solutions-based firm focused on appellate success. We are distinguished by our commitment to responsive service and on-going innovation in the areas of civil appellate litigation, amicus curiae support, and trial strategy consultation.

Our firm history, honors and awards, and locations speak to our collaborative approach and commitment to serving clients as well as the outstanding legal resources we bring to bear.

LEARN MORE ABOUT HORVITZ & LEVY

January 21, 2021

Plascencia v. Deese, B299142 (Jan. 20, 2021)

Plaintiff sued for wrongful death arising out of an automobile accident in which her daughter was killed. Prior to trial, two defendants settled. During trial against the remaining defendant, the trial court ruled, based on defendant’s “terse” discovery responses, that the defendant could not assert the comparative fault of the settling defendants at trial. The jury awarded the plaintiff $30 million in noneconomic damages.

The Court of Appeal reversed. The court held the defendant’s “terse” discovery responses could not be used as an evidentiary sanction at trial because there was no evidence of the defendant’s bad faith or willful violation of a court order. As a result, it was error for the trial court to sanction defendants by preventing them from arguing comparative fault of the settling defendants. 

The court also held that the $30 million award of noneconomic damages was excessive because it “shocks the conscience and suggests passion or prejudice on the part of the jury.” The court based its excessiveness finding on, among other things, misconduct of plaintiff’s counsel in violating the “Golden Rule” during closing argument — asking jurors to consider what would happen if one of them lost a daughter — and impugning the integrity of defense counsel by suggesting he had lied to the jury.

The court remanded for a new trial on damages and comparative fault.