Comments on Recent Cases: August 2023

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hilary_(2023)#/media/File:Hilary_2023-08-18_1410Z.jpg

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.

Court Considers Personal Jurisdiction Over Out-Of-State Defendant

Late last month, I argued a case before the Minnesota Court of Appeals. And the Court recorded the argument.

It was a classic debate over the extent to which an out-of-state defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in another state. Just as lawyers learn in their first year of law school, the court must consider the contacts between the defendant and the forum state. And a defendant must explain why the case is similar to previous cases that decided against jurisdiction, and different from those that held otherwise.

Court Affirms Summary Judgment Before the End of Discovery

A defendant may ask a court to dismiss a litigation if the plaintiff is unable to present evidence that supports their claims or rebuts an affirmative defense.  Frequently, defendants wait until the end of the “discovery period” when the parties exchange evidence to make these requests.  When they make those requests before the end of discovery, the plaintiff may claim that the request is premature since discovery is not yet over and so more evidence may arise that saves their claim.  This does not always work.

For example, in a recent case before the state appellate court in Brooklyn, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for injuries they sustained while working on their house.  The defendants moved for summary judgment before the end of discovery.  With that motion, they submitted evidence that they lived in the house and so it was not used just for commercial purposes, and therefore they were not subject to a law that conferred liability on them.  The plaintiff argued the motion was premature, but the appellate court agreed that it was not because the plaintiff did not demonstrate what evidence they expected to get in discovery that could rebut the claim and “mere hope or speculation” is not enough.

Cases like this illustrate how courts consider motions for summary judgment before the end of discovery.

Court Holds Malpractice Lawsuit Barred by Statute of Limitations

Litigation News recently published an article I wrote about a recent appellate decision concerning the statute of limitations in malpractice lawsuits.  The general rule is that the deadline to file a claim begins running after an unfavorable judgment is issued against the plaintiff.  But that isn’t always the case.

For example, the federal appeals court in Chicago recently considered a case brought by a company whose lawyer failed to advise them that an insurance policy could apply to a large liability.  When they it a claim late, the insurance policy denied the claim.  After losing litigation with the insurance policy, it sued the lawyer for malpractice.  The court held, however, that the time limit to file a claim ran from when the insurance company denied the claim, not from when it lost the lawsuit against the insurance policy, since that was when it knew that it had suffered a loss.

Cases like this should serve as a reminder for litigants to assert their claims as soon as possible instead of waiting until it is too late.

Court Rejects Discrimination Claim Under State Law, But Affirms It Under City Law

I handle a lot of employment discrimination claims. And one thing that makes this area of the law complicated is that there are many different grounds upon which an employee can claim discrimination, and several different laws that govern potential claims.

For example, the state appellate court in Brooklyn recently considered a claim by an employee with medical issues who consumed medical marijuana pursuant to a prescription. He applied for a job, failed a drug test, and sued the employer when it rescinded the application. The court held that the plaintiff properly alleged a violation of the city discrimination prohibition, but not the state equivalent. This was because the state law required the plaintiff to allege in the complaint how the employer could have provided a reasonable accommodation to let them work despite their disability. The plaintiff failed to allege that, and so that claim was dismissed. The city law had no such requirement, and so that claim stood.

Cases like this illustrate how complex employment discrimination cases can be.

Court Holds Defendant Did Not Provide Enough Evidence for Affirmative Defenses

A defendant in litigation can raise an affirmative defense to avoid a judgment against her.  An affirmative defense may apply, even if the plaintiff establishes the standard “prima facie” elements of a claim.  But affirmative defenses aren’t automatic, and courts may not dismiss claims unless the defendant provides detailed evidence that supports her defenses.

For example, in a recent case before the state appellate court in Brooklyn, an eight year old sued a college after he was injured at a lacrosse game.  The college relied on two affirmative defenses.  One defense was that sports facilities need only “provide screening or other safety devices for the area of the facility where the danger of injury to spectators is greatest.”  The other was that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by watching a live game.  The court rejected these defenses because the defendant failed to provide “evidence as to where in a lacrosse facility the danger to spectators would be the greatest” and so it could not establish that it provided screening there.  And it did not provide evidence that “the plaintiff's particular background and experience was such that he appreciated the consequences of standing where he did during the warmup period for the college lacrosse game.”

Cases like this illustrate the work defendants need to do to properly assert affirmative defenses.