Finally, the Tribal Defendants argue that JW Gaming cannot pursue punitive damages because an award of compensatory damages on the remaining claims would result in double recovery. Mot. 9.
But a jury’s finding of liability and an entitlement to compensatory damages could provide the basis for a punitive damages award even if JW Gaming does not in fact recover the compensatory damages. See Yates v. Nimeh, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (noting that a plaintiff could still recover punitive damages even though his compensatory damage claim had been offset); see also UTHE Tech. Corp. v. Aetrium, Inc., 808 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that compensation pursuant to a judgment in a different tribunal did not prevent the plaintiff from seeking treble damages under RICO).
It remains true that JW Gaming will not be able to recover the $5.38 million it loaned twice. See SJ Order 14.
In the event of findings in favor of JW Gaming on the remaining claims, I can structure the remedy to avoid double recovery. See Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 51 n.14 (1974) (“[J]udicial relief can be structured to avoid such windfall gains.”).
The doctrine of election or remedies is an equitable one.
(“Before an equitable estoppel can properly be applied, there must be an inequity to be remedied by the estoppel.”). There is no inequity to be remedied at this stage; the doctrine does not apply. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Tribal Defendants’ second motion for summary judgment is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Post a Comment