Falk v. Catron
This action arises out of a $250,000 loan plaintiff Yin Falk made to defendant Linda S. Catron. After Catron failed to repay the loan, Falk sued Catron and her agent, Richard E. Warren, Jr. (collectively, defendants) for, among other things, fraud. The trial court granted Falk’s motion for summary adjudication. The court also granted Falk’s motion for an order permitting discovery of defendants’ financial information pursuant to Civil Code section 3295.[1] After a trial on punitive damages, the court ordered defendants to pay Falk $750,000 in punitive damages.
Defendants appeal. Catron claims the court erred by granting summary adjudication on Falk’s fraud claims. Catron also challenges the punitive damages award. She claims there was insufficient evidence she intended to deprive Falk of property or otherwise injure her as required by section 3294. She also argues substantial evidence does not support the finding that she can afford to pay the punitive damages award.
Warren contends the punitive damages award must be reversed because it is disproportionate to his ability to pay and because there was insufficient evidence of his financial condition to support the award. Warren also claims his conduct does not justify an award of punitive damages and that the court misapplied the doctrine of respondeat superior.
We affirm.
Comments on Falk v. Catron