40 results for 'cat:"Experts" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Pena finds that the lower court properly denied the appellant’s dismissal motion pursuant to Chapter 74. The appellant contends that the plaintiff’s claim is a health care liability claim and that the expert report was not timely served. However, the complaint concerns the handling of a refund request after a surgery was not performed. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Pena, Filed On: May 9, 2024, Case #: 13-22-00508-CV, Categories: Health Care, experts, contract
J. Duffin denies the technology corporation's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit from a pet distributor over a contract for the corporation to develop a new web portal for the distributor's services that the distributor says never functioned properly. Because it is supported by admissible lay testimony from the distributor's project team, most of the distributor's breach of contract claim does not necessarily require expert testimony and has enough substance to survive the corporation's motion.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Duffin, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv563, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: experts, contract
J. Russell denies the defendant insurance company's motion to exclude certain expert testimony in this breach of contract lawsuit involving damage to a boat dock. The court finds that the expert is "qualified and his methodology is reliable." However, the court will partially grant the company's motions in limine. Specifically, the expert cannot define the company's "duty of good faith and fair dealing" or provide an opinion "on the ultimate conclusions" as to whether the company acted in bad faith.
Court: USDC Northern District of Oklahoma , Judge: Russell, Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: 4:18cv504, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, experts, contract
J. Brimmer denies a company's motion to exclude expert testimony in a dispute over a sales contract because the expert's scope of knowledge included hiring, training, development, and managing sales associates.
Court: USDC Colorado, Judge: Brimmer, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv763, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Employment, experts, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Tostrud grants the general contractor's motion for partial summary judgment and denies the subcontractor's in the subcontractor's action seeking payment for its work on a project building a water main under the Mississippi River, denies the subcontractor's motion to exclude expert testimony, partially grants two of the general contractor's motions to exclude expert testimony and fully grants a third. Issues of material fact remain as to whether the general contractor is entitled to delay-related or liquidated damages, and the subcontractor has stipulated to the dismissal of the two counts for which the general contractor seeks summary judgment.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 0:21cv2218, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Civil Procedure, experts, contract
Vice Chancellor Laster grants the partner of an investment fund complex summary judgment in a dispute over the payout agreement for future earnings and the dispute resolution mechanism for valuating a qualifying transaction. The appraiser offered improper legal arguments and issues since he is an expert, not an arbitrator, and thus should be limited to valuation terms and the like.
Court: Delaware Chancery Court, Judge: Laster, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: 2018-0907-JTL, Categories: experts, contract
J. Mensah grants the media company's motion to exclude the newspaper distributors' damages expert in a contract suit alleging the company breached the distributors' exclusive home delivery rights for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper by offering an electronic version of the paper. The expert's opinion is based on the presumption that the contracts entitle the distributors to a fee for each digital delivery, but this presumption is not supported by the text of the agreements.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Missouri, Judge: Mensah, Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv344, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: experts, contract
J. Griggsby partially grants a contractor’s motion to exclude testimony from two experts retained by a manufacturer as well as its cross-motion to exclude testimony from the contractor’s expert in this contract dispute. A report brought by the manufacturer’s expert will not be struck in full, but part of his opinion included a legal conclusion that will be struck. The manufacturer’s president is directed to produce additional information regarding his opinions. The contractor's construction management expert will not be excluded, but must produce additional information regarding disputed flash cards and logs in order to reopen discovery. The court also grants the manufacturer’s motion for sanctions and an insurer's motions for attorney fees; the contractor must pay a total of $30,410 to the firm and $10,347 to the insurer for expenses incurred during the reopened discovery period.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Griggsby, Filed On: December 8, 2023, Case #: 1:19cv2323, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: experts, Discovery, contract
J. Molberg finds that the lower court properly entered judgment for the computer forensics expert in this dispute over "an unpaid balance." The evidence sufficiently shows that the expert was engaged on the appellant's behalf in connection with a family law case, and the appellant "accepted the benefits" of the expert's testimony. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Molberg, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: 05-22-00780-CV, Categories: Debt Collection, experts, contract
[Consolidated]. J. Melloy finds a lower court properly denied an attorney's motion to disqualify an expert witness. The attorney argued that he had previously engaged with the expert witness to testify on his behalf concerning claims that he was the victim of a online cyber attack at the hands of two voice platform employees. However, the attorney and the expert witness did not forge an official engagement agreement. Affirmed.
Court: 8th Circuit, Judge: Melloy, Filed On: October 24, 2023, Case #: 23-1004, Categories: experts, contract
J. Doyle finds that the trial court improperly denied the condo association's motion for summary judgment in a negligence, breach of contract and nuisance action brought by the individual arising from property damage which allegedly resulted when soot and exhaust infiltrated her condo unit from a diesel-powered generator. The trial court incorrectly ruled without first determining the admissibility of testimony from two of the individual's experts pursuant to the association's motion to strike the testimony. Vacated.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Doyle, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: A23A0933, Categories: Negligence, experts, contract
J. Wolfe finds that the trial court properly awarded the property owner damages of $86,550 in a suit against a contractor over defective work on a project to elevate her home in connection with a federal flood mitigation program. There was no error in the admission of an expert's testimony as to property damages. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Wolfe, Filed On: October 10, 2023, Case #: 2023CA0058, Categories: Construction, experts, contract
J. Lin prohibits the custom broker's expert from offering opinions about the credibility or culpability of lay witnesses regarding the shipping company's complaint that the customs broker's incorrect information to the Food and Drug Administration caused the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to destroy four containers of the shipping company's alcohol wipes shipment. The expert can cure the form of her report so that it does not call into question the credibility of lay witnesses, as without that correction her testimony could improperly persuade the view of the jury.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Lin, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv1015, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: experts, Discovery, contract
J. Wright partially rules in favor of the contractor in a breach of contract action against the subcontractor arising from microtunneling work performed as part of a water main construction project. The contractor's motion for summary judgment is granted as to the subcontractor's counterclaims for breach of contract, misappropriation of property and professional negligence but denied as to the wrongful termination, warranty and prompt payment counterclaims. The contractor's motion to exclude an estimator's testimony is granted to the extent that his opinions on engineering and geological topics are beyond his area of expertise. The motion is denied in all other respects. The subcontractor's motion to exclude testimony from a geotechnical engineer and a scheduling and damages expert is denied. The contractor's motion to exclude testimony from a construction expert and a hydrogeology expert is also denied.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Wright, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: 0:20cv808, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: experts, contract
J. Edison grants, in part, ExxonMobil's motion to exclude expert testimony in its case against a crane company following the collapse of a crane at a California refinery. One expert is limited to testifying only to opinions he included in his expert report, per the rules of civil procedure, while another expert's testimony on an unrelated explosion at the refinery or who the prime contractor was will be excluded as irrelevant and lacking in factual basis.
Court: USDC Southern District of Texas, Judge: Edison, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: 4:21cv3008, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: experts, Warranty, contract
J. Hummel grants the information technology company's motion to reopen discovery and permit late expert disclosure in a breach of contract lawsuit brought by a consulting company. The tech company discovered its need for an expert witness only 26 days before the end of the discovery period after determining the witnesses that the consulting company put forward were not in fact its employees, but rather employees working out of a subsidiary in India and, therefore, outside the court's reach. While the tech company could have acted sooner, it acted in good faith to find an available expert during that time.
Court: USDC Northern District of New York, Judge: Hummel, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv508, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: experts, Discovery, contract
J. Land partially grants a company's pre-trial motion to exclude certain settlement communications in a breach of contract action against a former employee. The employee may not introduce the post-preliminary injunction takedown communications. The company's motions regarding exclusion of the fifth amended agreement and evidence related to quantum meruit damages are also granted. The agreement is not relevant to any remaining issues in the case. The employee's motion to exclude testimony from a certified public accountant on the company's damages is denied.
Court: USDC Middle District of Georgia, Judge: Land, Filed On: September 6, 2023, Case #: 4:21cv95, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: experts, Discovery, contract
J. McCafferty grants a company accusing two other companies of breach of contract and bad faith's motion to exclude parts of the accused company’s expert’s opinion, and partially grants the accused companies’ motion to exclude the accusing company’s experts’ opinions. The fact that one of the accusing company’s experts relied in part on information he received from the other does not make his opinion inadmissable. The accused companies’ expert “cannot opine about what ‘is expected of damages experts’ as that is the court’s function as gatekeeper and then the jury’s function as the ultimate finder of fact.”
Court: USDC New Hampshire, Judge: McCafferty, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv949, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: experts, contract, Technology
J. Booth agrees in part with the intermediate court’s reversal of the lower court’s decision to exclude expert testimony from an accountant whose method of analysis of an unassociated accounting firm’s records came into question after a neuroscience institute sued it. Within four years after the institute hired the firm, most of the institute’s members had quit and it eventually dissolved. Because of some mistakes in the accountant’s methodology, such as using one of the institute’s most profitable years as a baseline instead of an average year, the firm brought her credibility into question. The accountant has since made proper adjustments to her conclusions. Although the lower court was right to question the accountant, they should have focused on her methodology, not her credibility as an expert. Vacated in part.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Booth, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: C-13-CV-18-000181, Categories: experts, Accounting Malpractice, contract
J. Leland finds the trial court improperly denied the antiterrorism consulting firm's motion for additional discovery in a breach of fiduciary duties and contract case. Once it was determined the company's operating agreements did not contain any basis for the calculation of the minority's owners share values, there was no need to analyze other sections of the agreements. Meanwhile, the minority owners' expert witness provided competent and credible evidence to support his valuations of the ownership interests, and, therefore, the trial court properly adopted that valuation. Affirmed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Leland, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3077, Categories: Fiduciary Duty, experts, contract
J. Seeborg denies both the LED holder manufacturer and its customer's motions to exclude each other's expert witnesses, an accountant and the manufacturer's president. The accountant's methodology for calculating damages is not so irrelevant or unreliable as to require exclusion, and questions about the accuracy and appropriateness of certain figures used in his report are better left for trial. That accountant's opinion as to whether or not the parties' agreement's liquidated damages terms are reasonable is also admissible. The president, meanwhile, has offered testimony that falls within his personal experience and knowledge, and need not include a written report with his expert disclosure. Disputes over the figures he uses are similarly better evaluated at trial, and while his rebuttal report improperly provides legal conclusions, they do not justify wholesale exclusion of the report.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Seeborg, Filed On: July 28, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv1886, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: experts, contract