Sunday, December 24, 2006
SNELL WINS AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT CASE FOR FORD IN NEVADA
Snell & Wilmer lawyers Kelly Evans and Jay Schuttert won a defense verdict in Horsch v. Ford Motor Company (Clark County District Court, Nevada), a non-collision airbag deployment case involving a 1994 Probe automobile.
The airbag deployed while plaintiff was parking the car after the steering gear had been replaced at her business (an automobile repair shop). Plaintiff sustained vision loss and claimed, together with her co-owner husband, that they could no longer run the business as a result of the accident.
Damages in excess of $1 million, plus punitive damages, alleging design defect and failure to include proper warnings in the service manual, were claimed.
Plaintiffs dismissed their design defect claim shortly before trial and proceeded to trial on a failure to warn claim. After 8 days of trial, the jury returned a defense verdict after three hours.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
U.S. PLAINTIFF'S FIRM'S INVOLVEMENT SINKS CANADA CLASS ACTION
By Beth Posno and Robin Linley of Blake, Cassels & Graydon
On November 14th, 2006, a class action certification decision was released that will impact on the way the plaintiffs’ class action bar in Canada co-ordinates their activities with U.S. plaintiffs’ counsel, an increasingly common occurrence in Canada. In Poulin v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada (Poulin), Justice MacKenzie of the Ontario Superior Court denied certification in a proposed class action with respect to allegedly defective door latch mechanisms in certain vehicles sold in Canada. In denying certification, Justice MacKenzie found that the proposed representative plaintiff would not adequately represent the proposed class as the representative plaintiff had been effectively recruited by plaintiff’s counsel and lacked any real knowledge or interest in advancing the case. The Court was also concerned with the “co-counsel association agreement” between Canadian plaintiffs’ counsel and the U.S. plaintiffs’ class action firm Motley Rice LLC. It is expected that so-called co-operation or association agreements as between plaintiffs’ counsel north and south of the border will face increasing scrutiny by Canadian courts as a result of this decision.
It is not uncommon for U.S. law firms who have brought class actions in the U.S. to look to Canada with a view to importing their accumulated knowledge and expertise in order to create a “copycat” action in Canada. In Poulin, the well-known U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm Motley Rice had initiated several individual lawsuits in the United States with respect to allegations of faulty door latch mechanisms. Due to the low class certification threshold in Ontario, however, the decision was made to move for certification of a class action in Canada first. Subsequently, Motley Rice entered into a co-counsel agreement with Canadian plaintiff’s counsel in which it agreed to fund and provide guidance in support of a class action claim in Canada.
Read the entire article by clicking here.
Monday, December 18, 2006
SNELL & WILMER WINS ROLLOVER CASE IN THE BRONX
Snell & Wilmer lawyers Lee Mickus and Kimberly Neville won a defense verdict in Santos v. Ford Motor Company (Sup. Ct. New York, Bronx Co.). The case involved a single vehicle rollover accident of a 1995 Explorer. A 42 year old woman and her 13 year old daughter were killed in the accident and a 21 year-old (current age) son sustained brain injuries.
Plaintiffs claimed damages in excess of $25 million alleging design defects that caused the vehicle to be unstable and prone to rolling over during common evasive driving maneuvers.
Ford successfully moved for the dismissal of plaintiffs’ punitive damage claims at the conclusion of plaintiffs’ case. After seventeen days of trial, the jury returned a defense verdict after four hours of deliberation.
SNELL & WILMER WINS WRONGFUL DEATH CASE
Snell & Wilmer won a defense verdict on behalf of an Arizona town sued in Federal court alleging wrongful death. Patrick Fowler and Craig Logsdon represented Lake Havasu City in the trial before USDJ Neil V. Wake. Plaintiffs claimed that the town was responsible for the drowning of a 26-year-old on Labor Day weekend 2003 in the Bridgewater Channel portion of Lake Havasu, a narrow strip of water inside the city limits.
On busy holiday summer weekends, the Channel fills with thousands of people and hundreds of boats. Decedent’s family contended carbon monoxide emitted from an idling boat caused decedent’s death.
The jury returned a defense verdict after only ninety minutes of deliberation. The jurors agreed that boat engine exhaust was not the cause of death. Alcohol, heat exposure, and a head injury played a role, the jurors believed, causing decedent to pass out and drown. Jurors also concluded that the town acted responsibly in addressing air quality issues and public safety in the channel.
SNELL & WILMER WINS BREACH OF CONTRACT, BUSINESS TORT VERDICT
Snell & Wilmer lawyer Alex Conti, together with Dawson & Clark, took a defense verdict in Rutherford Dawson v. Ford Motor Company (Super. Ct. Calif. Los Ang. Co.). Plaintiff claimed that in 1996 he was promised appointment as a dealer if he were to enter into a contract to buy a Ford dealership. Plaintiff did so in 2003 but Ford refused to approve the deal and would not appoint Dawson as the new dealer. Dawson sued claiming $26 million in compensatory damages as well as punitive damages. Plaintiff’s case focused on the breach of an alleged oral contract and a separate claim of tortious interference with contract for failing to approve the dealership purchase agreement.
After eight weeks of trial and five days of jury deliberations, the jury returned a defense verdict. Snell & Wilmer associates Jeff Singletary and Erin Denniston participated in the case.
GOODELL DeVRIES WIN APPEAL IN MANDATORY ARBITRATION CASE
On November 30, 2006, in Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals, Linda S. Woolf and Nichole Nesbitt of Goodell, DeVries Leech & Dann won an affirmance of a previous dismissal for a national investment company and one of its employees in a breach of contract and defamation matter.
The case, Arban v. Edward Jones, et al. (CSA No. 0055, Sept. Term 2006), was brought by a former investment representative who claimed that following termination of employment he was denied certain commissions owed to him and was defamed by statements made by another employee to his potential new employer. Goodell’s Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration was grounded on a signed employment agreement with a mandatory arbitration clause.
Plaintiff argued that the arbitration clause was unenforceable and that it did not apply to his claims for defamation which did not “result from” his employment.
The court below dismissed the action and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that because the arbitration clause applied to both the employer and employee it was enforceable, and that arbitration clauses should be construed broadly.
Because the alleged defamatory statements related to the plaintiff’s employment, the defamation claim fell within the arbitration provision, and the plaintiff could not bring his action in circuit court.
MOLLY CRAIG ON 2007 IADC TRIAL ACADEMY FACULTY
Molly Hood Craig of the Hood Law Firm (Charleston, SC) has been chosen for the faculty at the International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy to be held at Stanford University, July 2007. She is also serving a term on the Executive Committee of the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys and recently coordinated the program and functions at their Annual Meeting at Amelia Island, Florida in November, 2006.
Friday, December 15, 2006
JOE ORTEGO OF NIXON PEABODY, INCOMING CHAIR
I am proud to have been recently elected to be 2007 Chair of The Network of Trial Law Firms (www.trial.com) whose 27 member firms and 5,000 attorneys operate from 105 offices in the U.S. and Canada. This is the second edition of our Trial.com Firm News.
2007 will be a challenging year for lawyers and litigants, as we come to grips with the new federal rules of discovery, as focus increases on spoliation and computer forensic issues.
On behalf of our organization and my law firm, Nixon Peabody, I wish our readers and their families a happy and healthy holiday season and new year.
Joe Ortego
Nixon Peabody LLP
212-940-3045
JOrtego@NixonPeabody.com
Personal Profile: Joe Ortego is a senior trial lawyer in the New York City office of Nixon Peabody, a multi-state law firm with more than 600 attorneys (www.nixonpeabody.com). Joe has been a partner of the firm for 8 years.
This will be Joe’s third year teaching trial advocacy at the TIPS Trial Advocacy Program at The Judicial College at UNR (Reno).
Joe is a member of Nixon Peabody’s three-person Diversity Action Committee whose purpose is to increase diversity in the firm of gender, race and sexual preference.
Joe was recently a panelist on a 4-hour satellite TV program discussing eDiscovery and the changes that became effective Dec. 1.
Recent Trials: E.D.N.Y. (jury) pesticide exposure product liability trial; N.Y. Sup. Ct., Comm. Part, E&O vanishing premium case for a large life insurer and its brokers; N.Y. Sup. Ct. Comm. Part shareholder, whistleblower, retaliatory termination.
Family: Wife Shirley, is associate general counsel at Lancer Financial Group (Long Beach, NY); daughter Alexandra is a sophomore at Dartmouth (pre-med); daughter Juliana is a sophomore at Garden City High School.
