Florida Rule 769.78 generally dictates rules on offers and demands as they pertain to judgments.[i] However, this area of law is not well-settled. In a recent case, Florida’s courts dove into the impact of post-offer prejudgment interest on the “judgment obtained.”[ii] The ruling in CCM Condominium Association, Inc. v. Petri Positive Pest Control, Inc. expands the complicated web of rules stemming from Rule 768.79.
Noneconomic damages often make up a large portion of Nuclear Verdicts™. Defense attorneys will be happy to know there is a new interpretation of “damage cap” at play in Tennessee after the ruling in Yebuah v. Ctr. for Urological Treatment, PLC.[i] The Tennessee Supreme Court’s ruling is a small step in the right direction for the defense. In the case, the court reviewed whether the statutory cap on noneconomic damages applies separately to a spouse’s loss of consortium claim pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102, thus allowing each plaintiff to receive an award of up to $750,000 in noneconomic damages.
Landlord and tenant law in Washington usually favors the tenant. However, a tenant can be the disfavored party when a clearly written, easily interpreted contract is involved. In Spokane Airport Board v. Experimental Aircraft Association, Chapter 79, the Washington Supreme Court adhered to the contract in question, siding with the landlord.
A strategic and thoughtfully prepared motion in limine can allow a party to assert control over the facts that will be presented to a jury and are a commonly used tool for raising evidentiary issues relating to expert witness testimony. A successful motion in limine can shape the course of a trial. In Valderrama v. Beautologie Cosmetic Surgery, Inc., the use of thoughtful motions in limine to preclude irrelevant testimony and prevent plaintiffs’ experts from relying on the irrelevant testimony, allowed defendants to succeed at trial.
In Bob Tyson’s book titled Nuclear Verdicts: Defending Justice for All, Bob Tyson challenges the defense bar to “[u]se your fouls.” A defense attorney who prefers to play by the books may question what an “honest foul” is and when to make such fouls. This article evaluates a May 2021 California Appellate decision illustrating how California courts allowed “honest fouls” in trial. Ultimately, these honest fouls allowed a jury to evaluate facts beyond plaintiff’s $16 million demand and the jury ultimately found plaintiff 45% responsible, reducing the total award from $2.9 million to $1.6 million.
In our April Newsletter, Tyson & Mendes reported a California federal court dismissed a lawsuit filed by the wife of a construction worker. Plaintiff claimed her husband contracted COVID-19 at work and brought the virus home infecting her as well. Following the dismissal, the district court judge gave plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint. At a hearing on May 7, 2021, the court upheld the dismissal without further leave to amend. As of this date, it is unknown whether plaintiff will appeal.