Jury verdict and judgment for plaintiffs In Re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation, MDL No. 840. Tried by Randall H. Scarlett who served as lead counsel for the direct action plaintiffs in all three phases of the trial of this complex case, and who served as one of the class counsel during the mandatory exemplary damage phase of the case which resulted in the record setting $1,200,000,000 judgment.

In 1965, Ferdinand E. Marcos was elected president of the Philippines. In 1969, he was re-elected for his second term. Under the Philippine Constitution, Marcos would have had to leave the office of Presidency after his second term ended in 1973.

Instead, Marcos suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and through Proclamation 1081, (entered September 21, 1972), Marcos imposed martial law in the Philippines.

For the thirteen years that followed before Marcos was deposed in 1986, he ruled as "dictator" of the Philippines. In order to quash legitimate political opposition, Marcos ordered, and failed to prevent, the torture, summary execution, and disappearance of numerous members of the political opposition.

In 1986, Marcos was finally thrown out of office through a popular uprising. He fled to the United States, seeking safe haven. Numerous victims of his atrocities had earlier fled to the United States, and met with Randall H. Scarlett.

In addition to seeking re-dress for his clients, Mr. Scarlett wished to send a strong message, to wit: That the United States would not be a safe haven for the fleeing dictators of the world. Suits were instituted against Ferdinand E. Marcos beginning in 1986, the first suits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The cases were coordinated before the Multi-District Litigation Panel. The Panel assigned the action to Federal District Judge Manuel L. Real (Central District of California). The case was venued in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Ultimately, the case was trifurcated for trial. Plaintiffs' liability verdict was received following trial on September 24, 1992. The $1,200,000,000 exemplary damage verdict on behalf of all plaintiffs was rendered following trial on February 23, 1994. In addition to the exemplary damage verdict, Mr. Scarlett's direct action plaintiffs received millions of dollars of judgments from the jury following conclusion of the compensatory phase of the trial on January 20, 1995. One of Mr. Scarlett's plaintiffs, Manuel Buncio, received the largest compensatory award rendered by the jury, case wide.

This complex international human rights case was the first of its kind. Often written about, and often cited, plaintiffs were successful in defeating all appeals through the United States Supreme Court. Complex settlement negotiations are now underway involving the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, various Swiss Bank interests, and the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos.

In Atayde v. Miller, et al, Mr. Scarlett was appointed lead counsel in a coordinated action involving a multi-vehicle/truck accident taking place on one of the busier Bay Area freeways. Mr. Atayde was killed as a result of that accident, and was survived by his wife and children, Mr. Scarlett coordinated the action and after extensive settlement conferences, the matter was resolved without the need of trial.

Mr. Scarlett along with his co-counsel, Cal J. Potter III, Esq., obtained affirmative remedies as a result of the death of plaintiff's decedent, in addition to a monetary settlement. Banks v. North Las Vegas Police Department. This was a federal civil rights action involving medical monitoring and medical care provided inmates in a jail operated by North Las Vegas.

At the time of his arrest, and before, Mr. Banks was in need of immediate medical treatment and care. Instead of providing him such care, it was alleged that he had been the victim of the use of excessive force, and had been denied medical treatment and care. Ultimately, Mr. Banks died in jail.

Just prior to trial, Mr. Scarlett and his co-counsel, Cal J. Potter III, Esq., confidentially settled the case. The settlement terms did include a letter of apology from the Mayor of North Las Vegas and from the Chief of Police of North Las Vegas. Additionally, the jail agreed to hire and place in the jail an independent medical services company. Inmates were thereafter afforded medical screening and onsite medical care as a result.

In Harrison v. North Las Vegas, et al., Mr. Scarlett, together with his co-counsel Cal J. Potter III, Esq., again took on the correctional facility run by the City of North Las Vegas. This federal civil rights action was settled for a confidential amount.

On the day of his 32nd birthday, Mr. Harvey Harrison was on the way to his mother's house for breakfast. Somewhere along the way, it would appear Mr. Harrison was himself the victim of a crime, the attack leaving him with a closed head injury. Due to his appearance and behavior, the North Las Vegas police were called. Rather than provide Mr. Harrison the medical treatment he so desperately needed, the police officers transported Mr. Harrison to the North Las Vegas Detention Center.

Mr. Harrison was double handcuffed, restrained with leg irons, and thrown into a cell. Having been afforded no medical treatment nor medical screen, Mr. Harrison died twelve hours later as a result of complications from his closed head injuries.

Mr. Scarlett established that Mr. Harrison died when the jail failed to properly diagnose the pre-arrest traumatic brain injury. Based on the extensive pre-trial discovery conducted by Mr. Scarlett and his co-counsel, Cal J. Potter III, Esq., a confidential monetary settlement was reached. Following such settlement, the City of North Las Vegas again altered the structure of medical monitoring rendered on-site at the jail.

Confidential settlement. Confidential settlement reached with defendants as a result of the wrongful death of plaintiff's father. Plaintiff was an adult, non-dependent child of decedent. Plaintiff's father died as a result of combined medical/malpractice products liability. Decedent was also survived by a spouse.