## Facts

- David and Joyce Plotnik and John Meihaus Jr. were neighboring homeowners in Laguna Niguel, California.
- A fence-location dispute ended in a 2007 written settlement that included (1) mutual releases of then-existing claims and (2) a promise that the parties would not “harass, vex or annoy” each other; the settlement also provided for attorney’s fees to the prevailing party on contract enforcement.
- After the settlement, the Plotniks presented evidence of continued hostile conduct, including Meihaus throwing yard debris onto their property and making hostile gestures.
- On April 9, 2009, David Plotnik opened a gate along the property line; the Plotniks’ small dog, Romeo, ran briefly onto Meihaus’s property.
- The Plotniks presented evidence that Meihaus intentionally struck Romeo with a baseball bat, causing a leg injury requiring surgery.
- The Plotniks sued for breach of the settlement agreement and torts arising from the alleged harassment and the dog’s injury, seeking economic damages and emotional-distress damages.
- A jury returned verdicts for the Plotniks and awarded substantial damages; the trial court later reduced the awards via remittitur and awarded attorney’s fees on the contract claim.
- The defendants appealed, challenging (among other things) emotional-distress damages for injury to a dog, evidentiary sufficiency, duplicative damages, the effect of the 2007 releases, and the attorney’s fee award.

## Issues

1. Whether a pet owner may recover emotional-distress damages for mental suffering caused by another’s intentional tortious injury to the owner’s companion animal.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported liability for breach of the settlement’s “no harassment” clause and related tort claims based on post-settlement conduct.
3. Whether the 2007 releases barred claims based on later conduct, including the 2009 incident involving the dog.
4. Whether the verdict permitted duplicative recovery for the same harm across multiple theories, requiring reductions beyond the trial court’s remittitur.
5. Whether attorney’s fees were properly awarded to the Plotniks under the settlement agreement’s fee provision.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the rule that California law permits emotional-distress damages for mental suffering caused by an intentional act that injures or kills a companion animal.
- The court upheld liability findings tied to post-settlement harassment and the intentional injury to the dog, and it agreed the 2007 releases did not bar claims based on later conduct.
- The court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to the Plotniks on the breach-of-contract claim under the settlement’s fee clause.
- The court modified the judgment by requiring additional reductions to eliminate duplicative damages and prevent double recovery for a single injury, while preserving recovery on valid theories.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may recover emotional-distress damages when another’s intentional tortious conduct injures or kills the plaintiff’s companion animal.
- Mutual releases in a settlement agreement generally bar only claims existing up to the settlement date and do not bar claims based on subsequent conduct unless clearly stated.
- A “no harassment” clause in a settlement agreement can support breach-of-contract liability when post-settlement conduct constitutes harassment within the contractual prohibition.
- A plaintiff is entitled to one full recovery per injury; overlapping awards under multiple theories must be reduced to avoid double recovery.
- Contractual attorney’s fee provisions are enforceable to award fees to the prevailing party on claims to enforce the agreement.

## Conclusion

The court recognized emotional-distress damages for the intentional injury of a companion animal, upheld liability and contractual attorney’s fees based on post-settlement misconduct, and modified the judgment to reduce duplicative damages consistent with the rule against double recovery.


Plotnik v. Meihaus, 208 Cal. App. 4th 1590 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)