Romania v. Volk
Filing
45
Order: Plaintiff's request for punitive damages is granted. Punitive damages in the amount of $350,000. is awarded to plaintiff. Signed on December 8, 2009 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (cp)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
STEVEN ROMANIA
Plaintiff,
ORDER Civ. No. 08-6229-AA
JASON VOLK, ROSENTHAL COLLINS GROUP, LLC AND DOES 2-5, Defendants.
AIKEN,
Judge :
The court held a hearing on October 2, 2009, to determine
the
amount
of
default
judgment.
Damages
were
awarded
as
requested by plaintiff except for the issue of punitive damages, which the court took under advisement. Plaintiff requests a punitive damages money award in the amount
of
$350,000.
Plaintiff
was
previously
awarded
a
compensatory damages money award of $ 3 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 as well as pre- and
- ORDER
post-judgment interest, attorney fees and costs.
Plaintiffls
request for punitive damages is based on his allegation that,
l1
[dlefendant defrauded and deceived me into investing with him on intentional misrepresentations and omissions of
based
important facts.I1
Plaintiff's Declaration, p .
2, para. 10.
Relying on Wieber v. FedEx Ground Packaqe System, Inc., 231 Or. App. 469, - P.3d
-,
2009 W 3448182 (2009) (guideposts and L
reprehensibility factors) and Vasuuez-Lo~ez Beneficial Oreson, v. Inc., 210 Or. App. 553, 152 P.3d 940 (2007) (punitive damages
discussion/reasonableness), plaintiff is entitled to an award of
$350,000 fox punitive damages in this case.
A one-to-one ratio
of compensatory to punitive damages is reasonable here. Relying on the case law cited above, defendant's conduct was "moderately reprehensible, and the harm was purely economical in that
plaintiff lost his entire $350,000 investment. The "guidepostwof reprehensibility associated with defendant's misconduct is the
l 1 m o s t important indicator of the reasonableness of a punitive
damages award."
Wieber, 2009 WL 3448182, *13
U.S.
559,
(citing BMW of
575
(1996)).
North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 Defendant's actions qualify
for application
of
the
fifth
reprehensibility factor (intentional conduct), as well as the third and fourth factors. Plaintiff was financially vulnerable and the misconduct was composed of repeated actions by defendant. Plaintiff was retired
As
a
and
not
particularly
financially
sophisticated.
result of plaintiff's dealings with
to
defendant, plaintiff had
cancel another business deal.
Defendant knew this information, thus supporting application of the fifth reprehensibility factor: I1intentional malice, trickery,
!
- ORDER
or deceit [ . 1 "
I . The first and second reprehensibility factors d
defendant's conduct "moderately reprehensible."
do not apply. Thus, two, perhaps three reprehensible factors are
met, making
Therefore, a one-to-oneratio of compensatory to punitive damages is appropriate. CONCLUSION Plaintiff's request for punitive damages
is
granted.
Punitive damages in the amount of plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this
$350,000
is awarded to
a
day of December 2009.
Ann Aiken United States District Judge
3
-
ORDER
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
