All Star argued that the punitive damages award was not excessive under constitutional due process standards or common-law remittitur principles, and that the punitive damages cap in § 510.265.1, RSMo unconstitutionally infringed on All Star’s right to a jury trial under the Missouri Constitution. In its cross-appeal, All Star argued that the circuit court should not have reduced the jury’s award of punitive damages against HALO. In its appeal, HALO argued several errors relating to evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and the submissibility of All Star’s claims for actual and punitive damages. (Ford did not participate in the prior appeal, or in the present appeal.) The appeals were consolidated. § 408.040, interest shall accrue on this judgment at the rate of 7.50% per annum until satisfaction is made.” HALO filed a notice of appeal to this Court on November 8, 2019, and All Star filed a cross-appeal on November 18, 2019. The Amended Final Judgment also specified that, “in accordance with RSMo. The Amended Final Judgment awarded All Star its costs jointly and severally against Ford and HALO. The Amended Final Judgment reduced the punitive damages award against HALO to $2,627,709.40 (five times the jury’s award of actual damages), by operation of the limitation on punitive damages found in § 510.265.1, RSMo. Consistent with the jury’s verdict, the Amended Final 2 Judgment awarded All Star actual damages of $525,541.88, and $12,000 in punitive damages against Ford. On October 29, 2019, the circuit court entered an Amended Final Judgment and Order. Finally, the jury awarded All Star $5.5 million in punitive damages against HALO, as well as $12,000 in punitive damages against Ford. The jury also awarded All Star actual damages of $500,000 for tortious interference. A jury awarded All Star actual damages of $25,541.88 for breach of Ford’s duty of loyalty (and for HALO’s participation in that breach as a conspirator). All Star alleged claims for tortious interference with business expectancies, for breach of Ford’s duty of loyalty, and for HALO’s participation in a civil conspiracy with Ford to breach his duty of loyalty. After it discovered Ford’s actions, All Star sued HALO and Ford in the Circuit Court of Jackson County. Ford’s covert activities included transferring customer orders from All Star to HALO, and sharing confidential information concerning All Star’s business and customers with HALO employees. All Star contended that, before leaving All Star, Ford surreptitiously began working to promote HALO’s interests, in coordination with HALO management and staff. In 2018, HALO hired Doug Ford, who had worked for All Star since 1994, as a salesperson. All Star is a small, family-operated business located in Kansas City, while HALO has approximately 2,000 employees and locations across the United States. Factual Background Both All Star and the Respondent, HALO Branded Solutions, Inc., are in the business of selling branded promotional products to their clients. Following the Supreme Court’s affirmance, the circuit court held that All Star had forfeited its right to recover post-judgment interest when it unsuccessfully appealed the adequacy of the punitive damages awarded in the original judgment. In an earlier appeal, All Star challenged the reduction of the punitive damages award the Missouri Supreme Court rejected All Star’s arguments and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The punitive damages awarded in the judgment were less than half of the $5.5 million awarded by a jury. In 2019, the Circuit Court of Jackson County entered a $3.1 million judgment in favor of Appellant All Star Awards & Ad Specialities, Inc., reflecting approximately $525,000 in actual damages, and $2.6 million in punitive damages. Torrence, Judge Before Division Two: Alok Ahuja, P.J., and Anthony Rex Gabbert and Thomas N. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WD85491 Filed: JAppeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County The Honorable John M. HALO BRANDED SOLUTIONS, ET AL., Respondent. IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT ALL STAR AWARDS & AD SPECIALTIES, INC., Appellant, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |