Tort Trends: California Nevada as Civil Case Trouble Spots for Corporate Defendants

August 1, 2008

Despite a continuing national trend of decreasing numbers of case filings, civil litigation for corporate defendants continues to be a strain on resources in particular states, according to comprehensive reports issued by two leading tort reform groups.

Both California and Nevada have been singled out by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform, and the American Tort Reform Association, as venues for tort and commercial litigation that generally favor plaintiffs due to a variety of factors that may have nothing to do with a the relative merit of a case.

The Chamber Institute of Legal Reform’s 2008 poll of general counsel ranks California as No. 44 among the 50 states, with only West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Illinois and Hawaiii being rated worse as venues for civil case defendants. This continues a poor trend for the Golden State, which was ranked No. 45 in last year and No. 44 in 2006 and continues to render large verdicts and uncertain judicial rulings in various areas, particularly Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Alameda county courthouses.

Nevada was ranked No. 40 in the same 2008 poll, dropping a stunning 12 spots in one year as media attention led by the Los Angeles Times focused on the close relationship between members of the trial bar there and judges.

In fact, the American Tort Reform Association, in its most recent assessment based on its own analysis, and interviews of litigator and litigants, ranked Clark County, Nevada (which includes Las Vegas) as the No. 5 “Judicial Hellhole” in America behind only long-time notorious pro-plaintiff venues such as South Florida, the Rio Grande Valley/Gulf Coast of Texas, Madison County, Illinois and West Virginia.
This was Clark County’s first time on the list and the ATRA justified the assessment due to its contention that “The decks appear to be stacked in favor of local lawyers who reportedly ‘pay to play’ in the county’s courts. Judges in Clark County have in recent years been accused of issuing favorable ruling in cases that may benefit friends, campaign contributors or even their own financial interests, according to the ATRA.

California remained on the most recent “Judicial Hellholes Watch List” in part because of continuing general complaints about the Los Angeles County Superior Court Central Civil West venue, known among the plaintiff’s bar as “The Bank,” perceived anti-buisness attitudes of jurors in Los Angeles and the San Francisco bay area, failure of the courts to rein in expenses of class action and multi-party complex tort cases, and Americans With Disabilities Act cases filed against smaller businesses. “The Bank” has been the site of some of the largest personal injury jury verdicts in U.S. litigation history including billion-dollar plus awards to plaintiffs against companies such as General Motors and Phillip Morris.

Plaintiff lawyers have been known to seek out the possibility of filing tort cases in either San Francisco or Alameda, should, for example, even one relatively minor defendant have business in the area, even if/when the plaintiff or heir of plaintiffs never lived or worked in the area, due the reputation of jurors and some judges there for being unsympathetic to both big and small business.