Patton

Patton v. Target Corp.

Good Law
580 F.3d 942·2009 WL 2768593·29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1189·2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19702
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 2, 200908-35177California3,462 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pregerson, J.

ORDER

Under Oregon’s split-recovery statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.735 , the State of Oregon (the “State”) is entitled to 60 percent of any punitive damages awarded under Oregon law. The statute applies to cases decided under Oregon law in federal court. DeMendoza v. Huffman, 334 Or. 425 , 51 P.3d 1232, 1235-37 (2002). In the case at bench, after the jury awarded a substantial amount of punitive damages, but before judgment was entered on the award, plaintiff and defendant settled the case for an undisclosed amount, without notice to or approval of the State. The State contends that the district court erred in approving the settlement and entering judgment in accordance with the settlement because the State’s consent was required for any settlement that would reduce or eliminate the State’s share of the punitive damages awarded by the verdict.

Because the interpretation of this facet of the split-recovery statute is an important and unanswered question of Oregon law that is dispositive in this case, we respectfully certify a question to the Supreme Court of Oregon.

Background

I. Factual and Procedural History

Plaintiff-Appellee James Patton (“Patton”) sued Defendanb-Appellee…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.