Comments on Recent Cases: January 2022

Image credit

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 Limits Anonymous Litigation

Information about litigation in the United States is publicly available. But many plaintiffs do not want to attract attention to themselves or let the world know about their claims. As a result, many plaintiffs file lawsuits under a pseudonym to maintain some anonymity. But courts do not always permit this.

For example, in a recent decision, the state appeals court in Manhattan reversed a trial court’s decision to let thirty-three victims of abuse sue a school anonymously. To support the motion for proceeding anonymously, the plaintiffs’ attorney submitted a short affirmation that “plaintiffs might suffer further mental harm should their identities be revealed.”  The court held that this was not enough, and evidence about each plaintiff’s need for anonymity was required.

Cases like this illustrate the requirements for litigating anonymously.

Court Limits Recovery of Damages Related to Emotional Distress

Few people are happy to get into litigation. Instead, the circumstances that lead to a lawsuit normally cause great emotional distress. So it is normal for plaintiffs to seek damages that compensate them for the mental anguish they feel arising from the defendant’s misdeeds. But that does not mean that a court will award them.

For example, in a recent decision, the state appellate court in Manhattan upheld the denial of emotional distress damages to a plaintiff who sued his son’s daycare for prohibiting his children from wearing religious jewelry. Among other reasons, the court held “he provided no evidence of treatment for emotional distress or of monetary loss.”

Cases like this illustrate that recovering for emotional distress may require a plaintiff to have spent money to address their psychological harm, such as by seeking professional help.

Court Limits Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction

Courts will dismiss litigation over out-of-state defendants where there is an insufficient connection between the state and the claims. Even if a defendant does business in the same state as the court, that alone may be insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.

This principle was illustrated in a recent decision by the state appellate court in Manhattan. In that case, the defendant was from out-of-state, but had numerous connections to New York: it negotiated an agreement with a New York company, retained New York professionals, and agreed to litigate in New York in several agreements. But the specific claims at issue in the case arose from statements the defendant made in Illinois. As a result, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction over the defendant and affirmed dismissal of the case.

This case illustrates what a plaintiff needs to show to establish personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant in a case arising from false statements. General connections to New York, and even a related transaction, may not be enough.

Court Splits Fees Between Two Contingency Attorneys

Instead of charging an hourly rate, some lawyers take a percentage of the amount they recover on behalf of their clients. This system gets complicated, however, when a client changes lawyers in the middle of a case. When that happens, how does the first lawyer get paid?

In a recent decision, the state appeals court in Manhattan had to decide how to split the recovered attorney fees in just that situation. It decided that the predecessor firm was entitled to 75% of the fees because it “it prepared and laid the groundwork for the settlement” by drafting pleadings, participating in discovery, and obtaining summary judgment on a key issue. Although the subsequent firm did work for a year, the court held that it was not the sole “driving force” behind the settlement.

Cases like this illustrate the work that courts look at as important in allocating fees between law firms and, by extension, to litigation generally.