Comments on Recent Cases: January 2024
Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow#/media/File:Winter_Storm_Jonas_2016_NYC_Pershing_Square.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 Refuses to Permit Third Party to Intervene
In litigation, a court generally hears arguments from the plaintiffs and the defendants. And while a third party can try to intervene to get the court to hear its arguments, a court may decline to listen.
This issue arose in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan. A law firm asked the court to decide how much money in attorney’s fees it could collect from an adversary. Another law firm asked the court to hear its arguments in opposition, even though it was not a party to the case. The trial court declined to let that firm submit arguments and the appeals court deferred to the trial court’s judgment, since the “case does not present exceptional facts showing the court's inability, or blatant failure, to properly assess expense claims in the absence of the intervention of an outside party…”
Cases like this illustrate the high standard a third party may need to meet to intervene in a case.
Court Dismisses Case on Form Non Conveniens Grounds
Just because a party is subject to personal jurisdiction in a court does not mean that court will hear the case. A defendant may argue that another more convenient court is more appropriate pursuant to the forum non conveniens doctrine.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a Brazilian couple who resided for a few years in New York, got divorced. The wife sought a judgment in New York, but the husband argued that the case should be litigated in Brazil. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case, even though the wife met the requirements to litigate in New York, because the couple’s ties to Brazil were stronger than their ties to New York.
Cases like this illustrate how a defendant can invoke the forum non conveniens doctrine.
Court Affirms Limit to Pain and Suffering Damages
It can be difficult to settle claims where a plaintiff seeks damages for pain and suffering from a jury. This is because it is sometimes random to what the value of those claims are to a jury. Some people may assign a million dollars to a plaintiff, others may assign a hundred.
Courts often, however, try to prevent juries from making outlier decisions. For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a jury awarded three million dollars for pain and suffering. The trial judge insisted that the plaintiff accept $700,000 or she would order a new trial. The appellate court affirmed that decision since the jury award was excessive.
Decisions like this help litigants calculate what kinds of damages a court may allow for pain and suffering so they can better evaluate their claims.
Courts Split on How to Consider Constitutional Challenges to Laws Prohibiting Care to Trans Youth
I wrote the cover story in the most recent issue of Litigation News, a publication of the ABA Section of Litigation. It is about a split among the federal appellate courts concerning whether laws that prohibit gender affirming medical care to minors are constitutional. And it considers how different framings of the same law result in different levels of scrutiny that courts apply.