Judge Tena Campbell – post-verdict motions denied


Case No. 2:05-cv-59 TC

United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16291

March 7, 2007

This case went to trial in November 2006. The jury returned a verdict for Mr. Russo against Ballard, finding no liability for co-Defendant Kimberly-Clark Corporation.  The jury awarded Mr. Russo $ 17 million for misappropriation of his trade secret, and $ 3 million for breach of a Confidential Disclosure Agreement.

Post-verdict, Mr. Russo requested prejudgment interest from the date of the verdict, exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees. Ballard moved for judgment as a matter of law, remittitur of damages, and for a new trial.

“Mr. Russo is not entitled to prejudgment interest on the verdict because the award is not definitely calculable and is based on unjust enrichment.”

Exemplary damages were denied since “the court does not find a public objective would be served by awarding exemplary damages.”

Attorney fees were denied since “the court does not deem this matter extraordinary to justify awarding attorneys’ fees.”

The Court also denied Ballard’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Motion for New Trial and Motion for Remittitur.

Explore posts in the same categories: Civil, Judge Tena Campbell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: