Tag: methodology
-
Event Management Expert’s Use-of-Force Opinions Excluded
This dispute stems from a February 08, 2017 incident in which MSG security guards and New York City Police Department officers forcibly removed Charles Oakley from a New York Knicks basketball game at Madison Square Garden. Defendants MSG Networks, Inc., Madison Square Garden Sports Corp., and Sphere Entertainment Group, LLC (collectively, “MSG”) filed a motion…
-
Beauty Industry Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Skinnification
Plaintiff Vicious Brands, Inc., doing business as Saints & Sinners, brought this action against Defendants Face Co., LLC, Skin Saint, LLC, and Holly Cutler, alleging that Defendants infringed Plaintiff’s trademark and falsely advertised Defendants’ skincare products. Plaintiff relied in part on an expert declaration of Karen Young, a beauty industry consultant. Defendants challenged the declaration…
-
Product Design Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Athletic Bags
Rebel, a cheerleading apparel brand based in Texas, sells, among other products, a backpack called the “Rebel Dream Bag.” Plaintiff holds a trademark in the Dream Bag’s “two-dimensional hourglass shaped enclosed curved figure double outline design, with an outlined straight rectangular shaped top line and an outlined curved three-fourth rectangular shaped line underneath, both inside…
-
Forensic Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Tree Impact Damage
This matter arises out of an insurance claim filed by Plaintiffs, Grayson Smithand Savannah Smith, related to a tree impact that caused damage to their property located at 2811 Pebblewood Drive, Valdosta, Georgia 31602 on August 30, 2023. Auto-Owners retained expert Brent Boyd, a forensic engineer, to analyze the damage to the property. Plaintiffs’ arguments…
-
Hospitality Expert’s Testimony on Lost Investments Excluded
In this landlord-tenant dispute, Defendant Gator Flower Mound, LLC (“Gator”) asked the Court to exclude the damages testimony of Alan Someck, the expert witness designated by Plaintiff Arch & Eng, LLC (“Z Grill” or “Plaintiff”), as irrelevant and unreliable. Z Grill alleged economic injury due to problems with the premises it leased from Gator, the…
-
Law Enforcement Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Deputies’ Conduct
On May 21, 2022, Defendants Deputies Montana Arceo and Brandon Avalos contacted Mr. Lyric Leeyn Cline at an ARCO gas station in Tacoma, Washington, after observing a vehicle they believed matched one involved in recent criminal incidents. Cline fled on foot, the deputies pursued him, and a struggle followed during which the deputies used physical…
-
Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on the Use of Pepper Spray Limited
Plaintiff LaBlanca Sibley’s excessive force claim against Officer Nicholas S. Riggall, arising from her arrest and detention, was based on Riggall’s use of pepper spray while she was seated in the patrol car. Sibley retained Mr. Jeronimo Rodriguez, an expert in law enforcement practices and use-of-force standards. Riggall moved to exclude Rodriguez’s opinions and testimony.…
-
Structural Engineering Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Chimney Collapse
Plaintiff Haverford Square Properties, LLC owned a building in Philadelphia insured by Defendant Trisura Specialty Insurance Company (“the Property”). The Property’s chimney collapsed and Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff’s full claim. Plaintiff then sued Defendant for breach of contract. During the litigation, Plaintiff consulted an expert, Tim Sass, who concluded that all of Plaintiff’s claimed…
-
Construction Expert’s Testimony on Insurance Policy Application Excluded
This case arises from an insurance coverage dispute regarding damage to Plaintiff O’Reilly Hotel Partners–Champions Circle, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) hotel complex in Fort Worth, Texas (the “Property”). The Property consists of various buildings, including a hotel tower, a conference center, and a golf clubhouse. The case involves multiple insurance policies and multiple insurance claims stemming from…
-
Public Contracts Expert’s Testimony on Property Management Excluded
This action arises from allegations that Fluor Corporation, Inc., and Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. (collectively, “Fluor”), submitted false or misleading information to the United States Government in connection with performance and award-fee determinations under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program IV (“LOGCAP IV”). Specifically, LOGCAP IV was a multiple-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract administered by the United States Army…
