Category: Accounting Expert Witness
-
Exercise Expert Allowed to Opine on the Quality of NAFTA’s Services
Over three decades ago, Plaintiff Sherry Morton founded a health and fitness company called Millennium Health & Fitness, Inc. On November 1, 2023, Morton and Defendant BCAP GDI 1, Inc. (“Defendant” or “BCAP”) entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement, whereby Morton agreed to sellMillennium to BCAP. The same day, Plaintiff National Aerobics & Fitness Trainers…
-
Accounting Expert Allowed to Opine on Net Service Level Payments
Plaintiffs The Avon Company and LG H&H Company, Ltd. (“Avon,” or Plaintiffs) brought this suit against Fareva Morton Grove, Inc. and Fareva S.A. (collectively “Fareva,” or Defendants) for a breach of their long-term Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (the “MSA”). Fareva filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Avon’s two experts, Anthony J. Campanelli and…
-
Law and Legal Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Alleged Obligations
Plaintiffs are alleged owners of real property containing natural gas who have no leases with EQT covering their interests. Claiming that EQT has produced gas from Plaintiffs’ properties but not paid them for it, Plaintiffs brought this putative class action seeking to recover the alleged non-payment on behalf of all allegedly unpaid tenants-in-common who presently…
-
Insurance Expert Allowed to Opine on Sales Tax Depreciation Practices
Plaintiffs Melissa Pitkin and Dan Grout own a home together in Healdsburg, California. They hold a homeowner’s insurance policy from State Farm, policy number 57-C4-6752-1 (the “Policy”), which covered certain losses to their home and all of its contents. The Policy included the “main policy form” (FP-7955, CA) as well as a “homeowners endorsement form”…
-
Expert Testimony on Deceptive Charges Excluded
Plaintiff Rickey Martin is a Florida resident who purchased corrective contact lenses from Defendant Lens.com’s website on five separate occasions between January and October, 2021. When making these online purchases, Plaintiff alleged that Lens.com charged him an undisclosed, unreasonable, and unlawful processing fee in violation of Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the “FUDTPA”).…
-
Accounting Expert Was Partly Allowed to Opine on the Business Relationship
This case involves a contract dispute between the Douglas and Amy Mottram and Robert Radke. Prior to 2018, the Mottrams entered into four joint ventures with Radke, in which Radke would buy land in California, on which the Mottrams would construct homes to be resold for mutual profit. Beginning in 2018, the Mottrams and Radke…
-
Accounting Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Transition Period
Robert Webster allegedly owed fiduciary duties, including duties of loyalty and honesty, to his employer, CellMark. He was also subject to contractual obligations restricting him from competing with CellMark or soliciting its customers or employees on behalf of himself or others. According to CellMark, Webster began breaching these duties in 2023 after deciding to leave…
-
Accounting Experts’ Testimony on Exclusivity Agreement Limited
CellMark brought several claims against Dinah Bowman, Göran Sohl, andFortex Americas, LLC (collectively the “Fortex Defendants”), as well as Rob Webster arising out of the unamicable end of Webster’s employment at CellMark in 2024. Plaintiff CellMark, Inc. retained an expert, Jay Cunningham, to show that itsuffered various economic damages arising from its claims in this…
-
Accounting Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Damages to Uninsureds
This case centers on a landslide that occurred in May 2017 in the Cincinnati neighborhood of Mount Adams. At the time of the landslide, Plaintiff Metropolitan Design & Development, LLC (“MDD”) was insured under a commercial liability policy with Defendant Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company (“Frankenmuth”). MDD performed construction work in the vicinity of the landslide…
-
Plant Pathology Expert Allowed to Opine on HLVd Infection
Plaintiff is a Delaware limited liability business suing multiple individuals and related trusts for securities fraud arising out of a transaction in which Defendants allegedly induced Plaintiff to purchase over $25 million of Devi Holdings stock through fraudulent misrepresentations about Devi’s financial condition and unpaid tax liabilities. Devi Holdings was a business engaged in engaged…
