Patton

Patton v. Target Corp.

Good Law
627 F.3d 1304·2010 WL 5263020·31 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1334·2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26213
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 27, 201008-35177California439 words

Opinion

Opinion

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 verdict, plaintiff and defendant settled the case for an undisclosed amount, without notice to or approval of the State. It is uncontested that the State was excluded from the settlement. Because no reported Oregon case addressed whether the parties could settle a case at the post-verdict stage so as to eliminate the State’s share of the punitive damages awarded by the verdict, we certified the question to the Supreme Court of Oregon, which it accepted.

We do not repeat the background facts or the procedural history of this case, which are adequately set forth in the prior opinions in this case. See Patton v. Target Corp., 2008 WL 361201 (D.Or.2008) (approving settlement); Patton v. Target Corp., 580 F.3d 942 (9th Cir.2009) (certifying…

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.