Allen v. Patel

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting a new trial in Brenda Lee Allen’s personal injury action against Anil Bhula Patel and related defendants. The court held that attorney misconduct, including improper presentation of gastrointestinal evidence and arguments inviting passion, prejudice, or punitive damages, supported the new-trial order. The court deemed the separate issue concerning the mistrial of the punitive-damages phase moot.

Holdings

1. Attorney misconduct is an irregularity in the proceedings supporting a new trial when it prevented a fair trial, and the misconduct here was sufficiently prejudicial to justify the new-trial order.
2. The new-trial order was supported by substantial evidence and was not an abuse of discretion.
3. The issue of whether the trial court properly declared a mistrial on the punitive-damages claim was moot.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly granted a new trial based on attorney misconduct and excessive damages.
2. Whether plaintiff's counsel's presentation of unsupported gastrointestinal and incontinence evidence, golden-rule arguments, reptile-theory arguments, and attacks on opposing counsel constituted prejudicial misconduct warranting a new trial.
3. Whether the trial court properly declared a mistrial during the bifurcated punitive-damages phase.
4. Whether the punitive-damages mistrial issue was moot because no order resolving that claim had been entered.

Disposition

affirmed