Comments on Recent Cases: February 2023
Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_State_of_the_Union_Address#/media/File:President_Joe_Biden_delivers_the_State_of_the_Union._Speaker_Kevin_McCarthy_and_Vice_President_Kamala_Harris_are_behind_him.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 Grants Summary Judgment When Disputed Facts Were Within Knowledge of Non-Moving Party
A motion for summary judgment asks a judge to decide a litigation without a trial. The opposing party often argues that the motion is premature since more discovery or a trial is necessary to decide the contested facts. And when material facts are genuinely in dispute, this argument is very persuasive. But not always.
For example, in a recent case before the state appellate court in Manhattan, the court affirmed that summary judgment was appropriate where there were facts in dispute, but the opposing party had access to the evidence. That case concerned a car accident where the defendant hit the plaintiff’s car from behind. The parties disputed whether the plaintiff was negligent in hitting the defendant’s car, but the court ruled the defendant knew why he collided with the plaintiff’s car, and so he did not need more discovery to submit opposing evidence.
Cases like this illustrate the situations where a court will grant summary judgment even when facts are in dispute.
Court Decides Defendant is Alter Ego of Company He Sold Years Ago
Even if a defendant resides abroad, she still may be subject to personal jurisdiction in the United States. Often there are clear connections between a defendant and a U.S. state, such as a contract in which a party agrees to litigation in a specific jurisdiction. But plaintiffs may still find grounds to assert personal jurisdiction when the facts are muddier.
For example, in a recent case before the state appellate court in Manhattan, the plaintiff sued an individual who resides abroad based on his connections to a company with ties to New York. The defendant claimed he hasn’t owned the company in nearly a decade, but the court held that the defendant was essentially the “alter ego” of the company (and thus subject to litigation in New York) since, among other things, he was able to use its assets to pay his personal expenses even after the sale.
Cases like this illustrate the kinds of facts that could connect a defendant to a jurisdiction.
Court Permits Second Lawsuit After First One is Dismissed On Technical Grounds
A plaintiff often only has one chance to file a claim against a defendant. Once a court dismisses it on the merits, that court and other courts will usually dismiss further attempts to start new litigation for the same claim based on the doctrine of “res judicata.” But not all dismissals are on the merits.
For example, the state appellate court in Manhattan recently held that it was not clear that the trial court had dismissed a complaint on the merits. In that situation, the plaintiff had not yet had an opportunity for the court to consider its contract claim and so it reversed the dismissal of its second lawsuit.
Cases like this illustrate the narrow situations where plaintiffs can evade res judicata dismissal.
Appeals Court Refuses to Confirm Arbitration Award Procured By Fraud
Litigation News published an article I recently wrote about the process of fighting an arbitration award in court. Although courts generally do not second guess the decisions of arbitrators or give litigants a second chance to present their case, there are limited circumstances when a court will refuse to issue a litigation judgment based on an arbitration.
In the article, I discuss a recent case involving an arbitration where there was proof that a party lied about whether it had relevant evidence. While cases like this one are rare, they provide important insight into when and how a court will consider challenges to an arbitration award.