Tag: methodology
-
Architecture Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Safety of Retail Escalators
Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“DSG”) operated a retail location in Lyndhurst, Ohio. After the lone up-down escalator in the Lyndhurst Store stopped working, it was not barricaded though the escalator remained non-operational and stationery. Tiffiney Jones contended that she felt a sharp pain in her toe while climbing the stationary escalator and had stepped on…
-
Law Enforcement Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Suspect’s Flight
Hakim Ledbetter was charged with: attempted possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, and 1,000 grams or more of PCP and aiding and abetting; possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; and possession of a firearm by a felon. The Government…
-
Environmental Engineering Experts’ Source-Identification Conclusion Excluded
In this water contamination case, Defendants Dow Chemical Company and Vibrantz Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) challenge the proof which Plaintiff Suffolk County Water Authority (“Suffolk”) proffers through its expert witnesses that dioxane-stabilized TCA is the source of the contaminant 1,4-dioxane in what it calls the TCA Claim Wells. Defendants did so through the opinions of their…
-
Fire Investigation Expert’s Specific Ignition-Source Opinion Excluded
This subrogation action arises from a fire that occurred on April 10, 2022, involving a dump truck owned by Boggs Transport, Inc. (“Boggs”) and insured by Plaintiff Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”). The fire began in a parked dump truck identified as Truck No. 863 at Boggs’s facility in Pageland, South Carolina, and spread to four…
-
Marketing Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Trademark Dilution
Plaintiffs Hyundai Motor Company and Hyundai Motor America, Inc. (collectively “Hyundai Motor” or “Plaintiffs”) are one of the largest automobile manufacturers worldwide, with vehicle sales in over 150 countries. Defendant Hyundai Technology is a manufacturer and seller of consumer electronics products including tablets, laptop computers/notebooks, desktop computers, monitors, digital storage, cell phones, and accessories. The…
-
Statistics Expert Allowed to Opine on PFAS Exposure
This case arises out of the contamination of surface waters and drinking water in Chattooga County, Georgia, with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances known as “PFAS.” In essence, Plaintiff Earl Parris, Jr., alleged that the Defendants have contaminated his city’s water supply and thus his household water with PFAS. Parris is a resident of Summerville, Georgia,…
-
Geology Expert’s Testimony on Potential Alternative Sources Admitted
This case arises out of the contamination of surface waters and drinking water in Chattooga County, Georgia, with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances known as “PFAS.” In essence, Plaintiff Earl Parris, Jr., alleged that the Defendants have contaminated his city’s water supply and thus his household water with PFAS. Parris is a resident of Summerville, Georgia,…
-
Survey Research Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Customer Experience
State of Connecticut and Federal Trade Commission, sued Chase Nissan LLC, d/b/a Manchester City Nissan (“MCN) and multiple individuals, alleging that MCN, along with others, acted together to defraud thousands of consumers. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants charged consumers for additional products or services (“addons”) that consumers never agreed to purchase. The Plaintiffs claimed…
-
Psychology Expert’s CPTSD Opinions Admitted
Danesh Noshirvan, an online entertainer and journalist, filed a civil action against Jennifer Couture alleging conspiracy and agency liability, as well as claims for defamation, tortious interference, misappropriation of likeness, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Noshirvan alleged that Couture, Dr. Ralph Garramone, M.D. and OMG Realty, LLC , along with the other named Co-Defendants,…
-
Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded
The Plaintiffs in this putative national class action are insureds who filed “total loss” claims for the actual cash value (“ACV”) of their totaled vehicles under their automobile insurance policies sold by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company or State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (collectively, “Defendants” or “State Farm”). Plaintiffs challenged State Farm’s application…
