Complex Lit Blog

15th Anniversary of Firm

March 17, 2016, marks the 15th anniversary of the Firm. ...

March 17, 2016, marks the 15th anniversary of the Firm.

Rule 37 Dismissal for Disregard of Order Compelling Discovery: “We Weigh Not Only The Straw That Finally Broke The Camel’s Back, But All The Straws That The Recalcitrant Party Piled On Over The Course Of The Lawsuit” (Good Quote)

Muhammad v. City of Chicago, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4551 (7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2016): Miykael Muhammad sued the City of Chicago and others for allegedly violating his civil rights during a traffic stop when a police officer forced him to take a field sobriety test. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. During discovery Muhammad failed repeatedly ...

Experts — Undisclosed Rule 702 Expert Testimony Barred under Rule 37(c)(1) Not Admissible under Rule 701 — Factors in Deciding Whether Supplementation after the Close of Expert Testimony Is Fair (Wyoming Supreme Court) (Good Quote)

Matter of the Paternity of HLG, 2016 Wyo. LEXIS 38 (Wyo. Sup. Ct. Mar. 11, 2016): [*P1] JN (Mother) appeals from the district court's order granting RFSG (Father) custody of their son, HLG (the child). She claims the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the child's therapist to give opin ...

Matter of the Paternity of HLG, 2016 Wyo. LEXIS 38 (Wyo. Sup. Ct. Mar. 11, 2016): [*P1] JN (Mother) appeals from the district court's order granting RFSG (Father) custody of their son, HLG (the child). She claims the district court…

Lawyer Representing Client in Prior Case thru Mediation & Settlement in Principle (But Not Agreement Drafting) Disqualified from Representing Adversary in Later Breach Case Where Intent at Issue — No Waiver Waiting 4 Months before Moving to DQ

Reading Int’l, Inc. v. Malulani Grp., Ltd., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3311 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2016): Appellee The Malulani Group, Limited ("TMG") moves to disqualify counsel for appellant Reading International, Inc. ("Reading"), Bronster Fujichaku Robbins ("Bronster Firm"). TMG seeks disqualification because ...

Supreme Court — Diversity Jurisdiction — The Citizenship of Any Unincorporated Entity (Here, a REIT) Is Determined by the Citizenship of Its Members — Calling Such an Entity a Trust Changes Nothing

Americold Realty Trust v Conagra Foods, Inc., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 1652 (U.S. Mar. 7, 2016): Federal law permits federal courts to resolve certain nonfederal controversies between "citizens" of different States. This rule is easy enough to apply to humans, but can become metaphysical when applied to legal entities. This case ask ...

Sanctions — Foreign Judgment for Costs in Favor of Party Sanctioned in U.S. May Be Used As An Offset Against U.S. Sanctions Award

Thai Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd. v. Hongsa Lignite (Lao PDR) Co., Ltd., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29864 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2016): Thai Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd., and Hongsa Lignite (LAO PDR) Co., Ltd., (collectively, "Petitioners"), filed a petition for confirmation of a foreign arbitral award pursuant to the Federal ...

Privilege — Federal Circuit Recognizes Patent Agent-Client Privilege — Scope = Communications Furthering Tasks Outlined in Patent Office Regs — 2-1 Panel Decision

In re Queen’s Univ. at Kingston, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4259 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2016): Petitioners Queen's University at Kingston and PARTEQ (together, "Queen's University") are engaged in a patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (together, "Samsung ...

Judicial Estoppel May Be Invoked by Party Not in Prior Proceeding Who Would Suffer No Prejudice And Even If Adversary Did Not Prevail on the Issue and Would Not Receive Unfair Advantage by Changing Position

Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3225 (11th Cir. Feb. 24, 2016): The equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions, "precludes a party from asserting a . . . position that contradicts or is inconsistent with a prior position taken by the same pa ...

Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3225 (11th Cir. Feb. 24, 2016): The equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions, "precludes a party from asserting a . . . …

Class Actions — While Every Member of a 23(b)(2) Injunctive Class Must Have Article III Standing, Must Each One Have Personal Standing? — Circuit Split (Not in 2nd Circuit)

Estate of Gardner v. Continental Cas. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26555 (D. Conn. Mar. 1, 2016): RULING ON MOTION [*2] FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Plaintiffs the Estate of Marie L. Gardner, the Estate of Francis R. Coughlin, M.D., the Estate of Barbara B. Coughlin, Janice B. Foster, and Marie Miller bring this cas ...

Estate of Gardner v. Continental Cas. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26555 (D. Conn. Mar. 1, 2016): RULING ON MOTION [*2] FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Plaintiffs the Estate of Marie L. Gardner, the Estate of Francis R. Coughlin, M.D., the Estate…

Attempt to Offer Expert Testimony as Lay Opinion Rejected — 701 v. 702 — Court Should Be Vigilant to Preclude Manipulative Conduct Designed to Thwart the Expert Disclosure and Discovery Process (Good Quote)

United States v. Afyare, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4173 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2016): This is one of two companion opinions from this panel in separate appeals from a much [*3] larger criminal prosecution. In this appeal, the government challenges three in limine rulings, arguing that the district court misinterpreted 18 U.S. ...

United States v. Afyare, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4173 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2016): This is one of two companion opinions from this panel in separate appeals from a much [*3] larger criminal prosecution. In this appeal, the government challenges…

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

15th Anniversary of Firm

Rule 37 Dismissal for Disregard of Order Compelling Discovery: “We Weigh Not Only The Straw That Finally Broke The Camel’s Back, But All The Straws That The Recalcitrant Party Piled On Over The Course Of The Lawsuit” (Good Quote)

Experts — Undisclosed Rule 702 Expert Testimony Barred under Rule 37(c)(1) Not Admissible under Rule 701 — Factors in Deciding Whether Supplementation after the Close of Expert Testimony Is Fair (Wyoming Supreme Court) (Good Quote)

Lawyer Representing Client in Prior Case thru Mediation & Settlement in Principle (But Not Agreement Drafting) Disqualified from Representing Adversary in Later Breach Case Where Intent at Issue — No Waiver Waiting 4 Months before Moving to DQ

Supreme Court — Diversity Jurisdiction — The Citizenship of Any Unincorporated Entity (Here, a REIT) Is Determined by the Citizenship of Its Members — Calling Such an Entity a Trust Changes Nothing

Sanctions — Foreign Judgment for Costs in Favor of Party Sanctioned in U.S. May Be Used As An Offset Against U.S. Sanctions Award

Privilege — Federal Circuit Recognizes Patent Agent-Client Privilege — Scope = Communications Furthering Tasks Outlined in Patent Office Regs — 2-1 Panel Decision

Judicial Estoppel May Be Invoked by Party Not in Prior Proceeding Who Would Suffer No Prejudice And Even If Adversary Did Not Prevail on the Issue and Would Not Receive Unfair Advantage by Changing Position

Class Actions — While Every Member of a 23(b)(2) Injunctive Class Must Have Article III Standing, Must Each One Have Personal Standing? — Circuit Split (Not in 2nd Circuit)

Attempt to Offer Expert Testimony as Lay Opinion Rejected — 701 v. 702 — Court Should Be Vigilant to Preclude Manipulative Conduct Designed to Thwart the Expert Disclosure and Discovery Process (Good Quote)

Recent Posts

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

RICO: No Causation Where Harm Flowed Several Steps After the Fraudulent Acts — RICO Causation Same As Antitrust Causation

Sanctions vs. Automatic Stay: Imposition of Sanctions (Here, Inherent Power Sanctions) Is Subject to the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

Archives

New York Office