Lawyers for Chrysler, Plaintiffs Spar Over CEO Pay, Decedent's Earning Potential
Chrysler's lead appellate counsel Thomas Dupree Jr., a Washington, D.C.-based partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, faced a hot bench Tuesday at…
October 24, 2017 at 04:14 PM
3 minute read
Chrysler's lead appellate counsel Thomas Dupree Jr., a Washington, D.C.-based partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, faced a hot bench Tuesday at the Georgia Supreme Court special session at the University of Georgia School of Law in Athens.
Dupree hung his oral argument for granting Chrysler a new trial on the company's objection to his opponent bringing up CEO Sergio Marchionne's $68 million-a-year compensation. Dupree noted that opposing counsel Jim Butler Jr. of Butler Wooten & Peak wrote that figure on a “giant” board. Then Butler asked the jury in closing arguments to award $120 million for the loss of Remi Walden's life in a burning Jeep after its rear-positioned gas tank ruptured on impact. The jury awarded the $120 million, plus $30 million for pain and suffering, though the amount was subsequently reduced significantly.
It turns out that Chrysler's lawyers didn't exactly make that objection at the trial, as Justice Nels Peterson was the first to point out.
“Counselor, the motion in limine related to Chrysler's participation in the bailout and Chrysler's financial condition,” Peterson interjected about a minute into Dupree's argument. “The motion did not relate to the CEO.”
Justice David Nahmias joined in with what seemed like a point in a law lecture. “That's a problem,” Nahmias said. “If you want to make a proper objection, you have to figure out why.”
Dupree pushed back, arguing that the objection applied because Marchionne's pay package reflects Chrysler's wealth and that the suggestion to the jury was “the company has so much money that it can afford to pay.”
Chrysler's attempt to set a valuation on the child's life seemed to fare no better with the bench than it had with the jury. “Why couldn't the child grow up to be a car company CEO?” Nahmias asked. “You've suggested this child would be a ne'er do well and not make anything.”
Nahmias was referring to Chrysler's estimate of the child's earning potential in Bainbridge—$57 a day.
The Waldens' legal team split their time between Frank Lowrey of Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore and Butler. Lowrey said Chrysler changed its argument since the Georgia Court of Appeals heard the case and upheld a reduced judgment last year. Butler used the word “false” at least three times and “misleading” once while referring to Chrysler's arguments.
Butler made a point to defend his closing argument, saying he was proud of it. Said Butler, “I used Marchionne's pay to mock their argument that, because this was a small-town boy with small-town parents, that his life wasn't worth much.”
After the trial, Decatur County Superior Court Judge J. Kevin Chason slashed the award to $40 million. Chrysler appealed appealed the reduced judgment.
In his last minute of rebuttal Tuesday, Dupree pointed back to the verdict. Dupree concluded, “When a jury awards $150 million, something was amiss.”
The case is Chrysler v. Walden, No. S17G0832.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRecent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
6 minute readFederal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
'Stock Car Monopoly'?: Winston Lawsuit Alleges NASCAR Anticompetitive Scheme
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250