Foreign Parent Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction Based Solely on Actions of Subsidiary, and Expert Testimony Properly Excluded as Unreliable in Products-Liability Case
Posted on Oct 5, 2022 in Consumer Protection, Jurisdiction | Comments Off on Foreign Parent Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction Based Solely on Actions of Subsidiary, and Expert Testimony Properly Excluded as Unreliable in Products-Liability Case
In the absence of facts supporting piercing the corporate veil or rendering affiliated companies alter egos, the actions of a subsidiary alone cannot subject a foreign parent company to personal jurisdiction in Florida, the Eleventh Circuit recently confirmed. The court’s decision in Knepfle v. J-Tech Corp., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 25781 (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2022), also reviewed the...
Plaintiff’s Coal Gasification Claims Go Up in Smoke, $13 Million Verdict on Defendant’s Counterclaim Remains
Posted on Apr 25, 2022 in Commercial Law and Business Torts | Comments Off on Plaintiff’s Coal Gasification Claims Go Up in Smoke, $13 Million Verdict on Defendant’s Counterclaim Remains
In MidAmerica C2L Inc. v. Siemens Energy Inc., 25 F.4th 1312 (11th Cir. Feb. 15, 2022), the Eleventh Circuit rejected an appeal from a $13.2 million verdict for the defendant in a lawsuit over coal gasification equipment. In an opinion written by Judge Barbara Lagoa and joined by Judges Newsom and Branch, the court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (a) excluding...
Denial of Daubert Motion and Dismissal of Fraudulent Transfer Claim Affirmed
Posted on Oct 3, 2018 in Bankruptcy | Comments Off on Denial of Daubert Motion and Dismissal of Fraudulent Transfer Claim Affirmed
In O’Halloran v. Harris Corp. (In re Teltronics, Inc.), 2018 WL 4700578 (11th Cir. Oct. 2, 2018), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court judgment affirming a bankruptcy court order dismissing a fraudulent conveyance claim. The alleged fraudulent conveyance was the debtor’s transfer of a “blocking right” and right of first refusal under a patent transfer agreement, but the...
Toxicology Expert’s Opinions Properly Excluded for Failure to Consider Dose-Response Relationship or Potential Alternative Causes of Plaintiff’s Disease
Posted on May 15, 2018 in Civil Procedure | Comments Off on Toxicology Expert’s Opinions Properly Excluded for Failure to Consider Dose-Response Relationship or Potential Alternative Causes of Plaintiff’s Disease
In Williams v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 2018 WL 2191426 (11th Cir. May 14, 2018), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s exclusion of proffered expert testimony by a toxicologist, and of the plaintiff’s proposed lay testimony that her home had “no present value” because of emissions from a nearby fertilizer plant, and affirmed the resulting grant of summary judgment to the...