Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Lascivious Acts Justify $50 Million Punitive-Damage Award
Opinion Says ‘Reprehensibility’ of Acts, in Front of Victim’s Co-Workers, Support Amount; $8 Million Judgment in Noneconomic Damages Also Affirmed in Sexual Harassment/Battery Action Against Producer Alki David
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has upheld a jury’s award of $50 million in punitive damages, along with $8 million in noneconomic compensatory damages, against film producer Alki David, heir to a Coca-Cola bottling fortune, based on his sexual battery and harassment of a woman who was a production assistant at two of his entertainment companies.
Presiding Justice Elwood Lui of Div. Two set forth in detail lascivious acts by David, including sexual simulation. He said David engaged in “despicable behavior” which, he noted, was “witnessed by coworkers.”
In the unpublished opinion filed Friday, Lui rejected David’s contention that the massive punitive-damage award in favor of Mahim Khan was excessive.
|
|
|
—AP ALKI DAVID Film producer |
‘Reprehensibility’ of Conduct
“Reprehensibility is the most important factor,” he said, declaring:
“We conclude that the 6 to 1 ratio in this case was warranted. Given David’s highly reprehensible, degrading and outrageous behavior, the award meets the overarching standard of ‘reasonableness.’…David took advantage of a low-wage entertainment industry worker, knowing it would be difficult for her to find paying work elsewhere or avoid homelessness unless she tolerated his abuse. His indecent conduct deserves the harshest community condemnation to serve as deterrent and punishment.”
David argued that the punitive damages duplicate what was covered by the award of noneconomic compensatory damages. Disagreeing, Lui wrote:
“The awards are not duplicative. The underlying verdict compensates Khan for emotional damage she sustained and is unlikely to ever recover from. Exemplary damages go to the state of mind and evil motive of the defendant: malice (despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of others) and oppression (despicable conduct that subjects another to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the person’s rights)….David has not shown that the jury’s $8 million quantification of Khan’s noneconomic harm was intended to be punitive.”
Other Awards Mentioned
The defendant maintained that he was prejudiced by Khan’s counsel improperly telling the jury of the punitive-damage awards against him in two other sexual harassment cases, with $4.3 million assessed in favor of Lauren Reeves and received and $8 million to Chasity Jones.
While observing that the contention was forfeited based on not having been raised at trial, Lui responded that David “forced Khan to make this argument by refusing to produce financial evidence or be questioned about his assets during phase two of the trial.”
The truth of the statement, he noted, was established by virtue of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michelle Williams Court having taken judicial notice of the verdicts.
David was barred from testifying at trial as a sanction for discovery abuses. That was not error, Lui said, explaining:
“Because David’s persistent, flagrant discovery violations could have led to terminating sanctions, the court’s decision to impose lesser sanctions was justified. He had ample warning his misconduct would have consequences. He cannot complain on appeal that the consequences he courted impacted his defense at trial.”
Self-Representation Privilege
There was no abuse of discretion in stripping David of his right of self-representation at trial, Lui found, in light of his conduct which included use of profanities, shouting at jurors, characterizing Khan’s lawyers as “criminal thugs” and “liars,” proclaiming that he was in “nonsense court,” making faces while Khan was testifying, and telling Court she was “absolutely ridiculous” and was treating him as if they were in “Nazi Germany.”
The presiding justice said:
“The record is rife with David’s misconduct.
“No fair trial could be conducted under these circumstances. Despite being warned he would lose the right to represent himself, he continued his misconduct. David plainly intended to disrupt trial. He violated the court’s rules of conduct and standards of decorum….The court exercised its prerogative to control proceedings: It rightfully observed that David’s self-representation cannot impede Khan’s right to access the court system. Revoking self-representation was not an abuse of discretion. David has only himself to blame for his outrageous misconduct.”
The case is Khan v. David, B305849.
David’s lawyer on appeal was Fred D. Heather of Glasser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro. Khan was represented by Nathan Goldberg, Dolores Y. Leal, and Renee Mochkatel of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg, along with Norman Pine and Scott Tillett of Pine Tillett Pine.
Aside from the actions brought by Khan, comedy writer Reeves, and model Jones, another ex-employee, Elizabeth Taylor, sued David for sexual harassment. There was a hung jury, and the case was settled.
David has publicly vowed not to pay “a dime” in satisfying the judgments and has proclaimed that his widely reported status as a billionaire is a myth.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company