Award Against Upper Deck Thrown Out : Lawsuit: O.C. judge finds that trading card company--hit with $33.1-million jury verdict--was prevented from getting a fair trial.

A judge overturned a $33.1-million jury award against baseball card manufacturer Upper Deck Co. on Friday, saying that actions of the plaintiff’s lawyer prevented the company from getting a fair trial.

In a written order, Judge James Cook of Orange County Superior Court said that the May 21 jury decision against Upper Deck, based in Carlsbad, could not stand because there was “insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and the verdict is against the law.)”

The turnaround drew immediate praise from Upper Deck officials, who had asked the judge during a hearing June 17 to review the verdict.

“I think we are entirely vindicated,” company President Richard P. McWilliam said.

Upper Deck was sued by its former corporate attorney, Andrew M. Passante Jr., who said he was promised a 3% stake in the privately held company. The jury awarded Passante $33.1 million, based on estimates that the maker of popular baseball trading cards is worth about $1.1 billion. Passante then agreed to split the award with partner Andrew J. Prendiville.

Cook, who presided over the trial, ruled that the plaintiff’s attorney, Vincent J. Bartolotta, a San Diego lawyer, won the case by consistently introducing disputed evidence against court rules, continuing to ask questions that the judge had ruled to be inadmissible and expressing his personal opinions.

“The misconduct of counsel was persistent and pervasive,” Cook wrote. “It prevented the defendants from having a fair trial.”

Bartolotta said that he was unhappy but not surprised by the ruling. He complained that Cook appeared to favor Upper Deck over his client throughout the trial.

“My client was an absolute, downright victim,” Bartolotta said. “Those 12 jurors saw that.”

Bartolotta defended his court actions and said he plans to appeal Cook’s decision.

In his ruling, Cook also wrote that there was no basis for the verdict. The agreement for Passante to receive the 3% stake in August, 1988, was made during a telephone conversation between Passante and former company director Boris Korbel, the judge noted. The two then decided to withhold that information from other corporate executives, including McWilliam, who was considering making a substantial investment in the company at the time.

“The agreement was in fact an agreement to defraud by concealment,” Cook wrote. “The agreement was unlawful and void.”

Bartolotta disputed that ruling also, saying there had been discussion before that telephone conversation about giving his client part ownership.

Cook also said that he is ordering a new trial.

Passante and Prendiville have two months to appeal Cook’s ruling. If they win an appeal, the case will be tried again. If they appeal and lose, Cook’s ruling Friday will stand.