Diaz v. Tesla, Inc.

Background

After a six-day trial in October 2021, the jury awarded Owen Diaz $4.5 million in past compensatory damages, $2.4 million in future compensatory damages, and $130 million in punitive damages. In March 2022, the court denied Tesla, Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and conditionally denied its motion for a new trial, provided that Diaz accepted a remittitur reducing the compensatory damages to $1.5 million and the punitive damages to $13.5 million. The court later postponed the deadline for Diaz to accept or reject the remittitur while it considered this motion.

Motion for Interlocutory Appeal

Diaz moved to certify the earlier remittitur order for interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the district court case is fully resolved. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certification requires a controlling question of law, substantial grounds for disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal that may materially advance the end of the litigation.

Diaz proposed a question about whether a district court reviewing a jury’s emotional-distress damages award may use damages awards from other cases with somewhat similar facts when determining the maximum amount supported by the evidence. He also framed the issue as whether awards upheld in other cases may influence the size of a remittitur.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Diaz had not identified a controlling question of law. The earlier remittitur order primarily examined the evidence presented at Diaz’s trial, including evidence of racial harassment and its effects on him. The court said the evidence supporting future damages was especially insufficient and that the past-damages reduction also required consideration of the trial evidence.

The court acknowledged that it had discussed other cases, including Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc. and Passantino v. Johnson, but explained that it used those cases to learn how other judges had evaluated somewhat similar facts. The court said those decisions did not dictate the result, impose a damages cap, or override the facts of Diaz’s case. It also distinguished upholding an unremitted damages award from deciding the appropriate amount of a remittitur.

The court further stated that it would not have issued the remittitur if it believed there were substantial grounds for disagreement about the relevant issue. It also found that certifying the issue would further delay a case that was already five years old. The court therefore found no factor supporting interlocutory appeal.

Disposition

The motion to certify for interlocutory appeal was DENIED. Diaz must file a notice on the docket within 14 days stating whether he accepts or rejects the remittitur. The court stated that it would then take the appropriate action described in the earlier order.