Comments on Recent Cases: June 2022
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 and link to two articles I wrote that Litigation News recently published.
Court Enforces Arbitration Clause in Contract that Employee Denies Electronically Signing
Litigation News published an article I wrote about electronic contracts. I represent clients in breach of contract disputes. But not every contract is a signed piece of paper. Some are just promises said aloud, and others are electronic contracts. And specific laws govern how electronic contracts are formed and enforced in litigation.
In the article, I discuss a recent case involving whether someone who disputes signing an electronic contract can be bound by its arbitration clause.
Court Reverses Dismissal When Plaintiff Alleges Defendant Improperly Obtained Release
Litigation News also published a feature article I wrote about two different recent federal appellate decisions that interpret the Fair Labor Standards Act to prevent out-of-state employees from participating in collective action suits against employers in certain courts.
It was an interesting opportunity to write about employment litigation, a subject that arises frequently in my work.
Court Limits Negligence Liability to Foreseeable Harms
In litigation, plaintiffs often seek compensation from any party that has the money to pay them. But they do not always articulate a sufficient reason why the defendant with money is the one responsible for their injuries and therefore needs to pay.
A recent decision by the state appellate court in Manhattan applied this principle. In that case, the plaintiff was injured in a fight. He sued the man who assaulted him, and also that man’s mother, who owned the building where the fight took place. Ostensibly, the plaintiff sued the additional defendant because that defendant owns a building and therefore may have the money to pay him. His reasoning why she should be liable was that she did not make her building safe enough given her son’s violent nature. But since the plaintiff had no evidence that the landowner’s son had any history of violence, and no evidence to rebut the sufficiency of the building’s locks, the court dismissed the case against the landowner.
Cases like this illustrate the burden plaintiffs must carry to litigate against landowners for the acts of third parties.
Court Cites Statute of Frauds in Refusing to Award Commission to Broker Who Procured a Lease Option
Litigants can usually sue for breach of contract without a written contract. But, as many students learn in their first year of law school, there are exceptions to that rule that are contained in the “statute of frauds.”
One major component to the statute of frauds is that any agreement that cannot be performed within one year must be written down to be enforceable in #litigation. So if I say I will pay you $100 for a barrel of apples, you can sue me if I do not, even if there was no time limit for my payment, because I could have paid you immediately. But if I say I will pay you $100 on delivery for apples that will be grown two years from now, that cannot possibly happen within a year, and so that agreement is unenforceable unless it is written down.
This principle was applied in a recent decision by the state appellate court in Manhattan. It allowed a real estate broker to sue for a commission arising from a transaction it worked on, but affirmed the dismissal of a claim related to the broker’s work on an option in a lease whose express terms said that the option could not be exercised for more than a year. Without a written contract entitling the broker to a commission for work related to that option, the court affirmed dismissal because of the statute of frauds.
Cases like this illustrate situations when parties need to write down their agreements.
Court Forgives “Law Office Failure” And Revives Case Dismissed Because Lawyer Failed to Follow Pandemic Rules
There are some situations where courts will forgive lawyers for making mistakes in litigation, such as missing a deadline to respond to a complaint. Courts call these attorney errors “law office failure.”
The state appellate court in Manhattan recently applied this concept in an usual situation: to reverse a dismissal. In that case, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s case because his counsel failed to submit an agreement to court before a hearing, unaware that the court adopted new rules during the pandemic that required counsel to do so. Both sides agreed to void the dismissal, but the trial court refused. The appeals court held that this “law office failure” was a reasonable excuse for failing to timely submit the agreement and reinstated the case.
Cases like this illustrate what situations offer flexibility to lawyers who make mistakes.