Norman Pine

In February 2019, Pine obtained appellate affirmation of a $300,000 jury award for mental and emotional suffering and punitive damages against organic produce company 4Earth Farms Inc. for plaintiff Dominga Navarro on claims of sexual harassment and disability discrimination. The 2nd District Court of Appeal panel affirmed the judgment in full, rejecting the defendant's evidentiary arguments concerning the plaintiff's emotional distress and sexual conduct with other employees. Navarro v. 4Earth Farms Inc., B284853 (2nd DCA, filed Sept. 28, 2017).

Pine, who was traveling in Africa, said by email, "Anytime a case involves punitive damages, that is often the greatest challenge because of the difficulty of winning -- and then holding onto -- such verdicts."

"We are especially proud that in the first six months of this year, we successfully defended punitive damages in three out of three contests," he added. The opinion in one of them, secured by Pine and law partner Scott L. Tillett, "does much to address punitive damages law in a way that rejects the many defense arguments so often raised in these cases," Pine said, citing Mazic v. GEICO General Insurance Co., B281372 (2nd DCA, filed March 13, 2017).

Last year Pine persuaded an appellate panel to affirm rare terminating sanctions and a $4 million default judgment in a child molestation case against a religious group after the defendant refused to produce documents concerning known molesters in the defendant's church. The panel held that the plaintiff had adequately alleged proximate cause based on a pedophile church elder having molested her and that the sanctions were appropriate given the defendant's discovery abuse. J.W. v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. 29 Cal.App.5th 1142 (4th DCA, filed Aug. 5, 2016).

"I believe that terminating sanctions are always rare; that multi-million-dollar sanctions are far more so; and that multi-million-dollar sanctions in published opinions even more so," Pine said.

Pine helped shape the employment litigation landscape with a 2015 state Supreme Court opinion easing the fee burden for unsuccessful Fair Employment and Housing Act plaintiffs. Under the new rule, those losing litigants must pay a prevailing defendant's costs only if the court finds the suit was objectively groundless.

Pine noted with satisfaction that the decision encouraged people with a valid beef to voice it. "The possible cost exposure hanging over their heads probably kept many plaintiffs from coming forward over the years," he said. Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District, 61 Cal.4th 97 (SCOCAL, Op. issued May 4, 2015).

-- John Roemer