Motion: nonsuit on punitive damages

📄 Motion: nonsuit on punitive damages — Thursday, February 6, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\FEB\6\MOTION-NONSUIT-ON-PUNITIVE-DAM.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 55 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Mark Roesler (part 2) Exhibit admissions and jury resumption ▶

Date: Thursday, February 6, 1997 • Utterances: 8

Defense counsel Robert Baker moved to nonsuit (dismiss) the punitive damages claim, arguing that plaintiffs failed to properly establish OJ Simpson's net worth as required by California law — instead improperly relying on future earnings projections. Plaintiffs' counsel Gelblum countered that the present value of future earnings is a valid component of current net worth. Judge Fujisaki denied the motion in one word.

# 1 MR. GELBLUM:

No further witnesses, Your Honor.

# 2 MR. BAKER:

We have a motion, Your Honor.

# 3 THE COURT:

Okay. Jurors step down and go into the jury room. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinion.

# 4 (Jurors exit to jury room.)

# 5 THE COURT:

The jury's out of the room. Go ahead. Make your motion.

# 6 MR. BAKER:

Move to nonsuit on punitive damages, based on their exhibits, including 2112, that their whole idea of punitive damages is based on future earnings which is not in accordance with the cases cited to Your Honor. It is not compiled, it's the present net worth at the time of the trial, and we therefore move for nonsuit on the issue of punitive damages under Adams versus Murakami, they have the obligation to produce the net worth of the defendant to enable them to go forward with an issue of punitive damages.

KEY QUOTE

# 7 MR. GELBLUM:

We presented testimony from Mr. Freeman that it's proper to include Mr. Roesler's calculation and present net worth and calculations from Roesler. That's another amount a willing buyer would buy a willing seller today not in the future but today for the right to receive that future earnings. That's a proper component of his net worth.

# 8 THE COURT:

Okay. Denied. Bring the jury out. We'll commence.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Robert Baker

Move to nonsuit on punitive damages, based on their exhibits, including 2112, that their whole idea of punitive damages is based on future earnings which is not in accordance with the cases cited to Your Honor.

Core defense argument: plaintiffs' punitive damages case was legally deficient because it used future earnings rather than present net worth as required under Adams v. Murakami.

Peter Gelblum

That's another amount a willing buyer would buy a willing seller today not in the future but today for the right to receive that future earnings. That's a proper component of his net worth.

Plaintiffs reframe Roesler's calculation as a present-value figure — what someone would pay today for the income stream — which satisfies the net worth requirement.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Okay. Denied. Bring the jury out. We'll commence.

Terse, immediate denial — Fujisaki's characteristically efficient style. Punitive damages will go to the jury.

Evidence (1)

2112

Plaintiffs' exhibit containing financial calculations, apparently Roesler's analysis of Simpson's earnings capacity used to support punitive damages

challenged by defense as improperly based on future earnings rather than present net worth

Notable Exchanges (1)

Robert Baker•Peter Gelblum

Baker argued plaintiffs' punitive damages theory failed the Adams v. Murakami standard by relying on future earnings; Gelblum rebutted that present value of future earnings is legally equivalent to current net worth.

strategic

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 8902 • 8 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103