Comments on Recent Cases: October 2024

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack-o'-lantern#/media/File:RIP_Pumpkin.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 Rules Qui Tam Lawsuits are Unconstitutional

A law called the False Claims Act allows people to sue companies that are stealing money from the government. The law allows those people to share a portion of the recovery. And it provides an incentive for whistleblowers to help the government to recover money it would not have otherwise known was being stolen. For many years, people have asserted claims as “relators” in “qui tam” actions, helping the government require a lot of money. Lawyers have relied on these relators as a substantial source of business, prosecuting their claims in an effort to share in the recovery. But that era may be coming to an end.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in a case, suggesting that the “qui tam” mechanism of the False Claims Act is unconstitutional. And in a recent case before the federal district court in Tampa, a judge agreed with that position and dismissed a False Claims Act case brought by a relator because, she held, the U.S. Constitution does not permit Congress to delegate the power of prosecution to individuals who choose to bring lawsuits since it belongs exclusively to the Executive branch.

It is incredibly likely that this issue will be appealed and likely settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Until then, there will be a lot of uncertainty in many lawsuits, alleging millions of dollars of theft.

Court Affirms Ruling That Defendant Failed to Preserve Enough Relevant Evidence

A party to litigation has a duty to preserve relevant evidence.  They can’t just shred everything to leave their adversary without evidence at trial.  But parties may disagree about the extent they need to preserve.  If a judge decides one side did not preserve enough, she may decide to tell a jury to assume the missing evidence was bad for the party who did not preserve it.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff fell in the defendant’s store.  The plaintiff told the defendant to preserve surveillance camera footage of the accident.  The defendant only preserved video of the accident itself, but not video preceding the accident that could have shown whether the defendant was on notice of the slippery floor.  The defendant claimed it only needed to preserve the video of the accident itself, but the court disagreed and affirmed the judge’s decision to tell the jury to assume the missing video would have been good for the plaintiff.

Cases like this illustrate the need for parties to preserve all relevant evidence.

Court Refuses to Vacate Judgment Even When New Law Passed

Once a court issues a judgment, it is very difficult to get a court to change its mind.  While a litigant may appeal a judgment in a limited time period, many people pursue litigation later on to ask a court to vacate a judgment, essentially seeking a second chance to argue an issue that the court had considered closed.  These cases are very difficult to win.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a litigant sought to vacate a foreclosure judgment.  It argued that, since the court originally ordered the foreclosure, there was a new law called the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act, and the court should reconsider the case in light of the new law.  The court disagreed, holding that a new law was not a reason to vacate its previous ruling, which was appropriate under the law in effect.

Cases like this illustrate how important it is to litigate issues when the court hears them and not rely on second chances later on.

Court Refuses to Strike Answer After Defendant Deletes Relevant Evidence

Litigants have an obligation to preserve relevant evidence.  But what happens when they breach that obligation?  More litigation ensues to determine what the consequence should be.  And while a court could decide to punish a defendant by striking their answer entirely - effectively letting the plaintiff win - courts may be reluctant to do that.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a defendant deleted the security video that depicted the plaintiff’s accident.  The court declined to strike the defendant’s answer because the plaintiff had other evidence she could use to support her case, and so the loss of the evidence was not as bad.  Instead, the court decided to instruct the jury that they should assume the video would have been helpful for the plaintiff.

Cases like this illustrate how courts determine the sanctions for spoliation of evidence.