Comments on Recent Cases: January 2021
Part of my work involves reading court decisions to keep abreast of how judges decide the types of cases I handle. Below, I share some thoughts on recent decisions.
New York Appellate Court Narrowly Applies the Relation Back Doctrine to an Amended Complaint
Litigants in disputes can amend their complaints to add claims that did not appear in their original complaints. And generally speaking, the court will treat those claims as if they were filed on the date of the original complaint, so the statute of limitations will not block them.
But this principle, called the “relation-back” doctrine, has limits. The new claim has to arise from the same subject matter as the original ones. For example, in a recent decision, a Manhattan appellate court held that a claim in an amended complaint about one type of insurance had already expired because it was brought too late. The plaintiff claimed it was timely because the original complaint was filed early enough. But the court held that the claim did not “relate back” to the date of the original complaint because that complaint focused only on another kind of insurance.
Cases like these help lawyers understand how an amended complaint can allow a litigant to bring new claims. And they remind litigants not to wait too long before filing.
Defendants May Enforce an Arbitration Agreement, Sometimes Even When Litigation Has Already Begun
New York courts generally dismiss cases when the parties have agreed to arbitrate their disputes. But an exception may exist where the parties have litigated their dispute in court for awhile and then one party belatedly invokes an arbitration agreement.
Even then, a court may still require arbitration. For example, in a recent decision, a Manhattan appellate court affirmed a trial court’s refusal to stop an arbitration. In that case, the petitioner argued that the arbitration agreement had been waived since the parties had already filed complaints, amended complaints, and answers in a New Jersey court. But the appellate court held that the petitioner did not suffer “prejudice” because of the court action and could easily continue the dispute in arbitration. This was true, it held, in light of the fact it had not already spent “excessive costs” for the court case since there had been no motions filed or discovery taken yet. And, it held, it could still argue the statute of limitations in arbitration, just as it wanted to in court.
Cases like these help lawyers and clients understand when arbitration is available and when the parties have waived it.
New York Courts Apply Different Rules to Plaintiffs Who Sue Universities
New York State courts allow litigants to challenge decisions of educational institutions. They do so through the same law that allows litigants to challenge the decisions of government institutions, CPLR Article 78.
A Manhattan appellate court recently considered an Article 78 petition, brought by former students at Fordham University that challenged the school’s decision not to permit them to form a student group. Although the court held that petition was moot since the petitioning student had since graduated, it noted that the school followed its normal process for considering the group and that it had a sound basis to deny the group’s formation.
Cases like these illustrate how New York courts review schools’ decisions, but also how it can be difficult for challenges to succeed.
Plaintiffs Can Allege a Defendant Aided and Abetted His Own Sexual Harassment in New York Federal Courts
Sexual harassment, and retaliation against those who report it, is illegal. And so is aiding and abetting harassers and people who retaliate. And according to New York federal courts, one person can be guilty for both harassment and for aiding and abetting.
It may seem duplicative to hold someone liable both as a perpetrator and as a helper, but a recent New York federal court decision explains the issue. In that case, a Fox News personality sued her cohost and the network for harassment and retaliation. She sued the cohost both as the harasser and for aiding and abetting Fox News, which she alleged was responsible for his harassment and retaliated against her when she complained. The cohost argued that he cannot be liable for harassment and for aiding and abetting another party for his own harassment. The court rejected the argument, since the law is that he can.
The court noted that other decisions have criticized this law. But it reveals ways in which plaintiffs can articulate their claims and highlights how employers and colleagues are responsible to maintain safe workplaces.