260 (1974). The Court held that a jury should have made this determination because lawsuits seeking “actual and punitive damages ... are traditional form[s] of relief offered in the courts of law.” Id. at 196, 94 S.Ct. 1005. We note that the Court did not specifically hold that a jury must determine the amount of a punitive damage award; instead, it held that plaintiffs have a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial when they seek punitive damages. See id Nonetheless, given the Court’s clear holding that there exists a common law right to a jury determination regarding punitive damages, Curtis suggests that juries must also determine the amount of punitive damage awards. See Capital Solutions, LLC v. Konica Minolta Bus. Solutions U.S.A., Inc., 695 F.Supp.2d 1149, 1153 (D.Kan.2010) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court’s decision in Pacific
holding that curtis suggests that the amount of punitive damages is a question for the jury under the seventh amendment holding that the seventh amendment does require that the jury also be allowed to determine the amount of any punitive damages awarded holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for lack of jurisdiction holding that punitive damages are not allowed under the flsa holding that even if the trial court had erred in denying the defendants motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages the error was harmless because the jury found in favor of the defendant and never reached the punitive damages claims