A California appeals court has upheld a trial judge’s decision to grant a new trial in a high-stakes personal injury case, concluding that significant and prejudicial misconduct by the plaintiff’s attorney tainted the original $1 million jury verdict. The appellate court affirmed the order setting aside the compensatory damages award, effectively sending Brenda Lee Allen back to square one in her fight against hotel owner Anil Bhula Patel.
The initial trial saw a jury award Allen over $1 million in compensatory damages following an altercation at the Ontario Airport Inn Hotel. Allen claimed that Patel attacked and injured her as she and her family were being evicted for nonpayment of rent during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the trial judge later sided with the defense, granting a Motion for New Trial (MNT) based on numerous instances of attorney misconduct by Allen’s lawyer, Michael K. Blue.
The Underlying Incident and Initial Verdict
The dispute began when Allen, staying at the hotel with her family for over a month, was told to leave after realizing she couldn’t afford extended rent. After police intervention confirmed her status as a tenant with rights, the confrontation escalated the following day. Allen testified that Patel and the hotel manager, Luis Mejia, entered her room without permission, threw out her belongings, and Patel then struck her and slammed her against a wall.
The ensuing civil suit included claims for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. While the jury sided with Allen on these claims, awarding $1,051,200 in damages, the trial court later found that this verdict was based on improper influence. The appellate court noted that the bifurcated trial on punitive damages was mooted by the granting of the new trial for the first phase of the case.
Attorney Misconduct: The Core Issue
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, conducted an independent review of the trial court’s reasons for granting the new trial. The appellate court found substantial evidence supporting the trial judge’s conclusion that attorney misconduct by Mr. Blue prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial.
The misconduct centered primarily on the introduction of graphic, inflammatory evidence regarding Allen’s alleged gastrointestinal (GI) issues, including incontinence, which the trial court had explicitly warned counsel could not be introduced without expert medical testimony proving causation linking it to the hotel incident.
Misleading the Court on Causation
A key finding against Blue was that he knowingly misled the court during pretrial motions regarding the admissibility of this evidence. The trial judge expressed that he allowed the graphic testimony based on the belief that expert testimony would be presented to link the incontinence to the altercation.
However, no designated medical expert testified to this causation. The court noted that the only treating psychologist, Dr. Carol Chambers, was not qualified to testify on GI issues. Despite warnings and granted motions *in limine* (MILs) aimed at excluding such evidence without proper foundation, Blue elicited detailed, graphic testimony from Allen and her family members describing her alleged incontinence, feces, and the need to wear adult diapers.
The trial court concluded that this evidence was highly prejudicial and inflammatory, effectively inciting sympathy from the jury, and that the jury could not reasonably disregard it, even after the court admonished them to strike the GI evidence from consideration.
Improper Closing Arguments
Beyond the issue of causation, Blue engaged in several other forms of misconduct during his closing arguments, which the appeals court also found well-founded grounds for a new trial:
1. Golden Rule Violation: Blue asked the jury to engage in a hypothetical scenario involving a briefcase full of money ($6 million) being offered in exchange for relinquishing “every single thing that matters” to them. This is a classic “golden rule” argument, which asks jurors to substitute their own measure of damages for the plaintiff’s, undermining impartial deliberation.
2. Reptile Theory Appeals: Blue repeatedly framed the verdict as a matter of community safety, telling the jury they had the “power to claim to the world that in this community a person cannot put his hands on another person.” The court found this violated the “reptile theory,” which improperly appeals to jurors’ fear for their own safety and the community’s well-being rather than focusing on the evidence specific to the case.
3. Attacks on Opposing Counsel: Blue improperly attacked the character and motives of the defense attorneys, speculating on conversations they would have with their client, Mr. Patel, based on the verdict amount. The court found these remarks to be insulting and outside the bounds of permissible argument.
The Appellate Conclusion
The appellate court stressed that attorney misconduct is a recognized ground for a new trial, provided the misconduct was prejudicial—meaning it is reasonably probable the moving party (Patel) would have achieved a more favorable result without it.
Given the substantial evidence of misconduct, especially the inflammatory and unproven GI claims that formed a “consistent hardcore theme” of the plaintiff’s case, the appeals court determined that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the MNT. The court found that a defense verdict could reasonably have been reached without the prejudice caused by the misconduct.
As a result, the order granting a new trial on liability and compensatory damages was affirmed. The associated issue regarding the mistrial declared during the punitive damages phase was consequently declared moot.