Gates is no more likely to settle now than it was

Gates is no more likely to settle now than it was before QMC’s amended pleading because the pleading presents no substantial new risk. It simply asserts allegations of damages, but it doesn’t change the merits of QMC’s claims or the facts in dispute. Facts supporting (or failing to support) QMC’s allegations are already known and have been for a while. If Gates wasn’t intimidated before, they won’t be now. Furthermore, there is no real risk of a 100 million dollar punitive damage award (assuming Gates did anything sufficiently egregious to merit such an excessive award, and a “managing agent” directed or ratified the act, do you have any idea what the net worth of a defendant has to be in order for a $100 million punitive damages award to be within the bounds of due process? I’m not intimately familiar with the facts of the case, but skimming the appellate decision I saw that the court noted Gates represented QMC’s opposition for only 10 days before withdrawing from the case. If true, QMC might face as much of a risk on Gates’ claim that QMC owes it $300,000 in legal fees as Gates faces against QMC’s claims. I’m not saying Gates didn’t screw up. They may well have. However, while lay persons and lawyers with poor judgment almost always focus on issues of liability (whether misconduct occurred), skilled lawyers are far more concerned with issues of damages (how much the plaintiff can reasonably expect to recover from the defendant, assuming liability can be established). In fact, the inclusion of an extreme punitive damage allegation hurts QMC more than it helps. It suggests QMC has poor judgment and a flawed lawyer.