Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 16, 2023

Zhu v. Li

Judge
Jeffrey White
Docket
4:19-cv-02534
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Zhu v. Li, Judge White denied defendants’ new-trial motion after remittitur acceptance and ordered an amended judgment.

Who this affects

The ruling affects Jiajie Zhu and the defendants because it leaves the denial of a new trial in place and requires an amended judgment reflecting the accepted remittitur, mitigation-of-damages award, and attorney’s fees and costs.

What happened

In Zhu v. Li, defendants asked for a new trial involving claims for intentional misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and punitive damages.

The court had previously denied most of the request and conditioned denial of the request concerning the contract damages and punitive damages on Jiajie Zhu’s acceptance of a remittitur. Zhu accepted that remittitur.

Judge Jeffrey White therefore denied defendants’ motion for a new trial for the reasons previously given and ordered an amended judgment reflecting the remittitur, mitigation of damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Zhu v. Li · No. 4:19-cv-02534
Judge
Jeffrey White
Date
Aug. 16, 2023

Background

On July 26, 2023, the court denied defendants’ motion for a new trial on the claims for intentional misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. It also denied the motion concerning the breach-of-contract claim and punitive-damages award on the condition that Jiajie Zhu accept a remittitur of the jury’s damages award. A remittitur is a court-approved adjustment to a jury’s award that takes effect when the required party accepts it.

Zhu accepted the remittitur concerning the breach-of-contract damages and punitive-damages award.

Ruling

The court denied defendants’ motion for a new trial for the reasons previously given. It ordered that an amended judgment be issued to reflect the remittitur of the breach-of-contract and punitive-damages awards. The amended judgment also must reflect the mitigation-of-damages award and the award of attorney’s fees and costs.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.