Wouldn't that be injuctive relief though instead of damages? Damages would be some kind of loss, which at this point there appears to be none as the author has stated.
The OP did not address this argument, but merely asserted that no irreparable harm would be done because you could simply pay damages. The court has said that calculating damages is impossible.
It doesn't seem to me that incalculable implies irreparable but it's certainly a defensible position.
IANAL, but there is a distinction between compensatory damages (which is what you are talking about) and punitive damages. I don't think the article mentions which, or what combination, of these is being awarded here.
This sounds like it's meant to be a correction, but the post your responding to mentions neither legal fees nor damages. Are you responding to the right comment?
The plaintiff (I’m not sure why you call him the “victim”) calculates his damages claim. That seems like an odd thing to contradict. If they inflate their claim wouldn’t you figure somewhere along the line they would fail to prove up their claim and fail to persuade the jury?
And what about the defense attorney over there arguing there were no damages at all?
> If the finding of frivolity was separate from the verdict
Isn't this somewhat handled by awarding "token damages" of $1 or similar? The litigating party "won", but it was determined that they were not actually harmed as claimed.
Only D is arguably on point, and probably wouldn't reverse a statement in the same filing that they are specifically not seeking a specified class of damages, instead it basically keeps open anything not specifically excluded tomwhich they might be entitled; equitable relief as mentioned in C is a legal term of art that does not overlap with money damages, so that certainly cannot be read as a claim for money damages.
I'm not sure how Google an claim they have covered the monetary damages, when in this case a jury is required to decide what the monetary damages actually are. I don't think they will be allowed to opt-out of risking punitive damages or higher actual damages discovered during trial. I'm kind of surprised they tried it given the headlines will obviously be negative.
reply