Economics Expert Witness' Opinion on the Necessity, or Lack Thereof, of Expert Economic Analysis Excluded

Economics Expert Witness’ Opinion on the Necessity, or Lack Thereof, of Expert Economic Analysis Excluded

The tenant-Plaintiffs in this case alleged that the Defendants, a national real estate investment and property management conglomerate, use illegal leases and engage in practices that violate the Plaintiffs’ rights under Washington’s Residential Landlord Tenant Act (“RLTA”).

The Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing. They sought damages, declaratory relief, and prospective injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs asserted additional claims which have been dismissed. Certain grounds for their claims under the RLTA, and for the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, were dismissed. Additionally, their claims for violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, retrospective injunctive relief, rescission, restitution, and disgorgement have also been dismissed.

After their first motion to certify a class was denied without prejudice, the Plaintiffs moved for a second time for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel. Defendants filed a motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ damages expert, Robert Kneuper.

Economics Expert Witness

Robert Kneuper is currently a Managing Director and Expert Economist with McClave + Associates (“MC+A”), formerly Infotech Consulting. He has also served as an Adjunct Professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Charleston Southern University, and Johns Hopkins University, where he has taught courses in antitrust economics, managerial economics, corporate finance, and political economy. With over 30 years of experience, Kneuper has worked as an antitrust, regulatory, and financial economist in both the federal government and private consulting. He has contributed to a wide variety of economic and financial consulting matters for private clients and government bodies.

Want to know more about the challenges Robert Kneuper has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

Discussion by the Court

August 15, 2023 Opinion

Kneuper’s August 15, 2023 opinion was on the putative maintenance and repair subclass’s damages.  The putative maintenance and repair subclass and its claims are not suitable for class certification. Accordingly, the Court decided that Kneuper’s opinion on Plaintiffs’ classwide RLTA repair and maintenance damages claims is not “relevant to the task at hand” relating to those claims.

September 17, 2024 Supplemental Opinion

In his September 17, 2024 supplemental declaration, Kneuper opined that “expert economic analysis is unnecessary” with respect to the other subclasses’ damages claims. He contended that fees charged could be presented to a factfinder in a “summary fashion, such as through a ‘summary, chart, or calculation’ which [he] underst[ood] is permitted under Rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” According to Kneuper, “a person with general familiarity and experience with reviewing financial documents (e.g. an accountant) could review and analyze Defendants’ ledgers and perform such calculations.”

The Court excluded Kneuper’s opinion, that no expert economic analysis is necessary to determine the remaining subclasses damage because there is no showing that this opinion will “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”

Further, to the extent that Kneuper opines on whether the subclasses’ damages evidence is admissible under Rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, it was held that those are determinations for the Court.

Held

  • The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs’ amended motion for class certification and for appointment of class representatives and class counsel.
  • The Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude the opinions of Robert Kneuper, Ph.D.

Key Takeaway:

Kneuper’s opinion that no expert economic analysis is necessary to determine the remaining subclass’s damages was considered unhelpful. Moreover, Kneuper was not allowed to opine on whether the subclass’s damages evidence is admissible under Rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence because the Court was meant to determine that issue.

Case Details:

Case Caption:Richmond Et Al V. Home Partners Holdings Llc Et Al
Docket Number:3:22cv5704
Court:United States District Court, Washington Western
Order Date:November 19, 2024


Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *