Complex Lit Blog

Class Actions — May a Court Certify a Class to Resolve a Specific Issue when the Whole Cause of Action Isn’t Certifiable? Circuit Split

Jacks v. DirectSat USA, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28881 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2015): II. Partial Certification Plaintiffs request, as an alternative to denying DirectSat's motion for decertification, that a class be certified as to liability issues pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pro ...

Jacks v. DirectSat USA, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28881 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2015): II. Partial Certification Plaintiffs request, as an alternative to denying DirectSat's motion for decertification, that a class be certified as to liability issues pursuant to…

Party’s Statements on Its Own Website Are Business Records and Admissions

CA, Inc. v. New Relic, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46438 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2015): In this patent infringement action, plaintiff CA, Inc. ("CA") alleges that defendant New Relic, Inc. ("New Relic") has infringed three patents which deal with monitoring the performance of software applications, otherwise known as app ...

Texted Photographs — Authenticated by Testimony from Recipient Sufficient to Authenticate Text Exchange with Purported Sender Plus Testimony Exhibit Is a Fair and Accurate Depiction of Photo Received from Sender

Peña v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3710 (Tex. App. April 15, 2015): Tanya testified regarding her text message exchanges with an individual she knew as Alejandro Peña. The interaction between Tanya and Peña began accidently; Tanya sent a text message to a number that matched her friend's number, with the excep ...

Peña v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3710 (Tex. App. April 15, 2015): Tanya testified regarding her text message exchanges with an individual she knew as Alejandro Peña. The interaction between Tanya and Peña began accidently; Tanya sent a text…

Are the Costs of Demonstrative Exhibits Used with Experts Taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) as Exemplification Costs? Case Law Split

Geiss v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47841 (D.N.J. April 13, 2015): 1. Fees for exemplification under § 1920(4) Defendant seeks fees for the enlargement and mounting of Plaintiff's medical records and charts and diagrams used at trial that were admitted into evidence. It also seeks reimbur ...

Geiss v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47841 (D.N.J. April 13, 2015): 1. Fees for exemplification under § 1920(4) Defendant seeks fees for the enlargement and mounting of Plaintiff's medical records and charts and diagrams used at trial that…

Rule 11 — Actual Notice by Email Doesn’t Satisfy Safe Harbor Requirements — Finding of Meritless, Alone, Insufficient Basis for 1927 or Inherent Power Sanctions

Chong v. Chang, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5381 (2d Cir. April 3, 2015): Michael K. Chong appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest

Chong v. Chang, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5381 (2d Cir. April 3, 2015): Michael K. Chong appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest , J.), granting appellees' motion for …

Email Authentication — Confirming Circumstances Beyond Sender’s Self-Identification Needed, Suffice to Authenticate Electronic Communications — Voicemails from Sender with Same Contents Plus The From Line of Email Suffice

Commonwealth v. Czubinski, 2015 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 191 (Mass. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2015): Following a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant, Theresa Czubinski, was convicted of one count of criminal harassment. She appeals, claiming error in the judge's reasonable doubt instruction and in the improper admission ...

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — No Judicial Notice of Website of Governmental Party Stating Fact Inconsistent With All Evidence before the Government Entity and Contrary to Its Own Findings of Fact (Website as Evidence Creator?)

Spokane Cnty. v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Board, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 755 (Wash. Ct. App. April 9, 2015): We address once again the compliance of Spokane County with Washington's intractable Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, this time in the context of a comprehensive plan amendment that rezoned a pa ...

Diversity Jurisdiction — Last Domicile Not Lost until New One Acquired — Domicile Not Lost by Forcible Change in State of Residence — Meaning of Abuse of Discretion (6th Circuit)

Pitt Excavating, LLC v. Pitt, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3044 (6th Cir. Feb. 25, 2015): This case concerns the question of whether a person's domicile is his new Tennessee apartment or his old Kentucky home. Plaintiff-Appellant Pitt Excavating, LLC (Pitt Excavating), a Tennessee limited-liability company, filed this act ...

Pitt Excavating, LLC v. Pitt, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3044 (6th Cir. Feb. 25, 2015): This case concerns the question of whether a person's domicile is his new Tennessee apartment or his old Kentucky home. Plaintiff-Appellant Pitt Excavating, LLC…

Lawyer Representing Fiduciary Does Not Also Represent, Or Owe Fiduciary Duty to, Beneficiaries — Third Party Beneficiary Argument Not Reached — Lawyer for Personal Representative Not Disqualified from Being Adverse to Beneficiaries

Bain v. McIntosh, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3116 (11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2015): Howard Walther and Dorothy B. Walther (collectively, the Walthers), the beneficiaries of the James Walther Revocable Life Insurance Trust (the Trust), appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Steven Kane, Esq. and Kane and Koltun, ...

Sanctions under Rule 11 and § 1927 Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion But Invocation of Inherent Power Reviewed De Novo, Factual Findings for Clear Error — Ct. App. Can Ignore Rule 11 and 1927 If Inherent Power Sanctions OK — FRAP 38 Standard

Meyers v. Textron Fin’l Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5736 (5th Cir. April 9, 2015): Following a two-day show-cause hearing, the court imposed sanctions, jointly and severally, against the Meyerses and Cole for their conduct in the RMC case and the sanctions action. In a thirty-six page opinion, the court awarded Textron $79,424.21 (l ...

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Class Actions — May a Court Certify a Class to Resolve a Specific Issue when the Whole Cause of Action Isn’t Certifiable? Circuit Split

Party’s Statements on Its Own Website Are Business Records and Admissions

Texted Photographs — Authenticated by Testimony from Recipient Sufficient to Authenticate Text Exchange with Purported Sender Plus Testimony Exhibit Is a Fair and Accurate Depiction of Photo Received from Sender

Are the Costs of Demonstrative Exhibits Used with Experts Taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) as Exemplification Costs? Case Law Split

Rule 11 — Actual Notice by Email Doesn’t Satisfy Safe Harbor Requirements — Finding of Meritless, Alone, Insufficient Basis for 1927 or Inherent Power Sanctions

Email Authentication — Confirming Circumstances Beyond Sender’s Self-Identification Needed, Suffice to Authenticate Electronic Communications — Voicemails from Sender with Same Contents Plus The From Line of Email Suffice

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — No Judicial Notice of Website of Governmental Party Stating Fact Inconsistent With All Evidence before the Government Entity and Contrary to Its Own Findings of Fact (Website as Evidence Creator?)

Diversity Jurisdiction — Last Domicile Not Lost until New One Acquired — Domicile Not Lost by Forcible Change in State of Residence — Meaning of Abuse of Discretion (6th Circuit)

Lawyer Representing Fiduciary Does Not Also Represent, Or Owe Fiduciary Duty to, Beneficiaries — Third Party Beneficiary Argument Not Reached — Lawyer for Personal Representative Not Disqualified from Being Adverse to Beneficiaries

Sanctions under Rule 11 and § 1927 Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion But Invocation of Inherent Power Reviewed De Novo, Factual Findings for Clear Error — Ct. App. Can Ignore Rule 11 and 1927 If Inherent Power Sanctions OK — FRAP 38 Standard

Recent Posts

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

RICO Pleading: Statutory Directive That RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Extend to More Liberal Pleading Requirements

FRAP 38 Sanctions Imposed Due to the “Striking Legal Emptiness” of Brief/Appeal, “A Legal Nothingburger” — Bad Faith Not Required: An Appeal “May Also Be Frivolous If It Is Filed Out Of Sheer Obstinacy” (Good Quotes)

RICO: Hobbs Act does not apply when the alleged extortion is meant to benefit the state

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

Archives

New York Office