Today, Fishkin Lucks presented “Federal Abstention: Theory and Practice” before a live audience in New York City. The presentation was produced by Lawline.com of FurtherEd Inc. and is available for CLE credit online. Exploring both the themes and practical mechanics of the federal abstention doctrine, the presentation focused on the concept that federal courts may be required to refrain from hearing cases that are otherwise properly brought before them. The seminar explored how while both prudence and federalism occasionally require federal courts to abstain, courts narrowly apply abstention doctrines making their application the exception rather than the rule. In addition to the most well-known doctrines such as Colorado River and Pullman Abstention, we examined the closely related Younger Doctrine, the Anti-Injunction Act, and the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. Offering a practical approach to an often cumbersome area of federal practice, we placed each of the abstention theories within historical and contemporary contexts so that their applicability to the practitioner is clear.
Fishkin Lucks prevailed today in the Supreme Court of New York (New York County) (Coin, J.). Following a hearing, the Court dismissed the remaining claim brought against our client, a national life insurance company, by its former servicing agent in Latin America for alleged commissions due under the parties’ agency agreement prior to its termination. The Court found on the record presented that all compensation due under the agreement’s complex commissions structure was paid in full before the agreement was properly terminated. Combined with the Court’s earlier ruling in May 2012, granting the Firm’s motion to dismiss claims that our client wrongfully terminated the agency agreement, this latest ruling from the Court provides our client a complete victory in the case.
Fishkin Lucks prevailed today in the Supreme Court of New York (New York County) (Kornreich, J.), obtaining a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on behalf of the Firm’s client, an international manufacturer of industrial machinery, prohibiting the client’s former Chief Operating Officer from, among other things, transferring a luxury New York City condominium he purchased with funds embezzled from the client. We were able to persuade the Court that the former executive was likely to sell the condominium and transfer the sale proceeds off-shore, thus necessitating the temporary restraints and emergent injunctive relief ordered.
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted today, in large part, the Firm’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing negligence claims and claims brought under the Connecticut Product Liability Act (“CPLA”) against the Firm’s clients, including a well-known manufacturer of residential and industrial protective paints and coatings, and a leading national retailer. The Court based its decision on admissions the Firm elicited at its deposition of plaintiffs’ expert engineer, including that he had no basis to criticize our clients’ product. The Court stated “in his deposition,” plaintiffs’ expert “admitted he ‘does not criticize'” the product and based on that admission, his “testimony provides no basis for the trier of fact to conclude [the product] had a faulty design or a manufacturing defect. . . . The plaintiffs’ failure to proffer expert testimony is also fatal to their CPLA claim to the extent it is based on a failure to warn theory or negligence theory. With respect to failure to warn, the plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence that the [product] was defective without warnings. Similarly, with respect to negligence, the plaintiffs have not sufficiently shown that defendants breached a duty of care. Summary judgment is, therefore, warranted.”
Fishkin Lucks prevailed today in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (Ocean County). Following a hearing, the Court granted the Firm’s motion for summary judgment dismissing fraud, consumer fraud, contract and civil conspiracy claims against the Firm’s client, a national life insurance company. Plaintiffs alleged they were wrongfully induced to participate in a complex wealth accumulation and asset protection plan (“Plan”) allegedly marketed by our client as combining the benefits of qualified and non-qualified retirement plans, compounded and tax-deferred growth and a tax-free death benefit. The Court agreed the statements that allegedly induced plaintiffs to participate in the Plan were statements as to future events that cannot constitute misrepresentations upon which a fraud claim may be based and that New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to complex financial products, like the Plan, sold exclusively to business owners.
Fishkin Lucks secured a voluntary dismissal with prejudice today of product liability claims brought against the Firm’s client, a specialty paint and sealant manufacturer, in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas (Philadelphia County). Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against our client on the eve of plaintiff’s de bene esse deposition, based on our argument that, under the terms of its asset purchase agreement with the product manufacturer, our client bore no liability for the product that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries.
