Slatowski v. Sig Sauer, Inc.
The defendant, an ICE officer, was injured when his pistol fired unintentionally. The defendant gun manufacturer, Sig Sauer, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff cannot establish its defective design product liability claim because the expert testimony it offered to prove causation was inadmissible and unreliable. The court granted the defendant’s motion.
Plaintiff Fails to Prove Causation—U.S. District Court (Pennsylvania) Grants Summary Judgment to Defendant
The defendant, an ICE officer, was injured when his pistol fired unintentionally. The defendant gun manufacturer, Sig Sauer, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff cannot establish its defective design product liability claim because the expert testimony it offered to prove causation was inadmissible and unreliable. The court granted the defendant’s motion.
U.S. Appellate Court Affirms Witness’s Exclusion—Cites New Rule 702 but Follows Abrogated Precedent Instead
The district court in this case excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical expert witness in this medical malpractice case, citing Rule 702, resulting in a summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, but the circuit court affirmed the district court, citing Rule 702 in affirming the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ witness. Even though the 2023 amended Rule 702 was cited, the circuit court reverted back to the pre-amended Rule 702 to bolster its exclusion of the witness.
Rodriguez v. Hosp. San Cristobal, Inc.
The district court in this case excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical expert witness in this medical malpractice case, citing Rule 702, resulting in a summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, but the circuit court affirmed the district court, citing Rule 702 in affirming the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ witness. Even though the 2023 amended Rule 702 was cited, the circuit court reverted back to the pre-amended Rule 702 to bolster its exclusion of the witness.
Motobilt, Inc. v. Bystronic, Inc.
In this breach of warranty case, the plaintiff offered opinions of a damages expert but found the expert’s opinions inadmissible. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s expert “applies accounting and economic principles” to assess the value of the equipment, but his report did not identify any such principles or explain how they supported his valuation methodology. Since the plaintiff had no damages evidence to offer, the defendant was granted summary judgment.
U.S. District Court Finds Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony Inadmissible and Grants Summary Judgement to Defendant
In this breach of warranty case, the plaintiff offered opinions of a damages expert but found the expert’s opinions inadmissible. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s expert “applies accounting and economic principles” to assess the value of the equipment, but his report did not identify any such principles or explain how they supported his valuation methodology. Since the plaintiff had no damages evidence to offer, the defendant was granted summary judgment.
Bankruptcy Court Denies Summary Judgment That Financing Is a Loan and Not a Change of Control
The wind down trustee sought a summary judgment order in the form of a declaration that no sale or change of ownership or control occurred when the debtor entered into a DIP and exit loan agreements with a capital financing company. A change of ownership or control would result in the estate owing a break fee to Fifth Seasons Investment. The court denied summary judgment for reasons outlined in the opinion.
GWG Holdings, Inc. v. Fifth Season Investments, LLC (In re GWG Holdings, Inc.)
The wind down trustee sought a summary judgment order in the form of a declaration that no sale or change of ownership or control occurred when the debtor entered into a DIP and exit loan agreements with a capital financing company. A change of ownership or control would result in the estate owing a break fee to Fifth Seasons Investment. The court denied summary judgment for reasons outlined in the opinion.
EllDan Corp. v. Steele (In re EllDan Corp.)
The remaining matter in this bankruptcy adversary proceeding was whether the covenants not to compete in the prepetition franchise agreements were enforceable. The debtor rejected the franchise agreements after the petition date of the bankruptcy proceedings. The court ruled that the covenants were reasonable in duration and geographic scope under Minnesota law and public interest was not harmed. The court also found that the debtor breached the covenants the franchisor was contractually entitled to injunctive relief.
Despite Rejection of Franchise Agreements in Bankruptcy, Debtor Remained Obligated Not to Compete
The remaining matter in this bankruptcy adversary proceeding was whether the covenants not to compete in the prepetition franchise agreements were enforceable. The debtor rejected the franchise agreements after the petition date of the bankruptcy proceedings. The court ruled that the covenants were reasonable in duration and geographic scope under Minnesota law and public interest was not harmed. The court also found that the debtor breached the covenants the franchisor was contractually entitled to injunctive relief.
Gutierrez v. Padilla
The plaintiffs bought two automotive supply businesses from the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant and the defendant’s broker made representations about the condition of the businesses during the sale and breached various terms of the sale contract. The district court dismissed complaints against the defendant’s broker and awarded damages to both parties regarding alleged actions in regard to the sale contract. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s decisions.
New Mexico Appeals Court Affirms Awards of Damages to Both Parties on Claims of Breach of Contract
The plaintiffs bought two automotive supply businesses from the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant and the defendant’s broker made representations about the condition of the businesses during the sale and breached various terms of the sale contract. The district court dismissed complaints against the defendant’s broker and awarded damages to both parties regarding alleged actions in regard to the sale contract. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s decisions.
Jayawardena v. Daka
This case involved a shareholder dispute among four shareholders of a physician practice (Ferncreek Cardiology PA) and two real estate LLCs. There were buy-sell provisions for each of the three entities. As to Ferncreek, the buy-sell provision was essentially an increase in book value provision, as the regular account determined in “good faith.” Payment provisions were also included in the agreement. The two real estate LLCs had a buy-sell provision that provided for either a single agreed-upon appraiser or three appraisers if no agreement was made. The plaintiff made the decision to exit the practice, triggering the buy-sell provisions. The parties were not able to agree on certain provisions as they worked through the buy-sell agreements. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on some claims of both parties. This appeal dealt with these partial summary judgments and was filed by the plaintiff.
North Carolina Appeals Court Affirms Decisions on Value of Businesses Under Buy-Sell Agreements
This case involved a shareholder dispute among four shareholders of a physician practice (Ferncreek Cardiology PA) and two real estate LLCs. There were buy-sell provisions for each of the three entities. As to Ferncreek, the buy-sell provision was essentially an increase in book value provision, as the regular account determined in “good faith.” Payment provisions were also included in the agreement. The two real estate LLCs had a buy-sell provision that provided for either a single agreed-upon appraiser or three appraisers if no agreement was made. The plaintiff made the decision to exit the practice, triggering the buy-sell provisions. The parties were not able to agree on certain provisions as they worked through the buy-sell agreements. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on some claims of both parties. This appeal dealt with these partial summary judgments and was filed by the plaintiff.
Pinto v. Schinitsky
The Supreme Court of New York denied motions to dismiss assertions of excess compensation, payments to a consultant, and a salary paid to the defendant’s mother. The court also denied a Daubert motion to exclude the plaintiff’s expert on the reasonableness of compensation. The plaintiff’s expert, a CPA, was found to qualify even though reasonable compensation was not his competency for his practice.
New York Court Denies Claims in Three Damages Categories, Denies Daubert Motion to Exclude Experts
The Supreme Court of New York denied motions to dismiss assertions of excess compensation, payments to a consultant, and a salary paid to the defendant’s mother. The court also denied a Daubert motion to exclude the plaintiff’s expert on the reasonableness of compensation. The plaintiff’s expert, a CPA, was found to qualify even though reasonable compensation was not his competency for his practice.
Manbro Energy Corp. v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC
The primary focus of this case was cross-motions for summary judgment on issues dealing with fiduciary duty and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A final issue, of importance to valuation experts, was a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s valuation expert, which the court denied.
U.S. District Court (New York) Denies Motion to Exclude Expert Witness
The primary focus of this case was cross-motions for summary judgment on issues dealing with fiduciary duty and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A final issue, of importance to valuation experts, was a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s valuation expert, which the court denied.
Estate attorney sued over alleged undervaluation
The matriarch of a family business in Hawaii had four children, two of which were involved in the business.
Couturier v. Comm'r
The Tax Court was asked in this ESOP-related case to approve the taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment. The petitioner contended that the IRS “is precluded as a matter of law from asserting excise tax liability under section 4973” because it did not issue him a notice of deficiency challenging his income tax treatment of the transactions that generated the excess contributions. The motion was denied. The alleged excess contributions were more than $26 million with alleged excise tax of more than $8 million.
Tax Court Denies Taxpayer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Relative to an Excess IRA Contribution Relating to an ESOP Purchase/Sale
The Tax Court was asked in this ESOP-related case to approve the taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment. The petitioner contended that the IRS “is precluded as a matter of law from asserting excise tax liability under section 4973” because it did not issue him a notice of deficiency challenging his income tax treatment of the transactions that generated the excess contributions. The motion was denied. The alleged excess contributions were more than $26 million with alleged excise tax of more than $8 million.
Kuzma v. N. Ariz. Healthcare Corp.
The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.
U.S. District Court Partially Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Qui Tam Case on Excess Purchase Price Under the False Claims Act
The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.
Ohio Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of Permanent Injunction and Dismisses a Claim of Tortious Interference
An Ohio appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a permanent injunction to the plaintiff because the evidence did not show that it faced immediate and irreparable injury or harm. It was also held that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference because the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant induced a third party not to continue to do business with the plaintiff.
Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Tucker, Albin and Assocs.
An Ohio appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a permanent injunction to the plaintiff because the evidence did not show that it faced immediate and irreparable injury or harm. It was also held that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference because the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant induced a third party not to continue to do business with the plaintiff.