Over the last four months, we have tracked the District of New Jersey’s proposal and adoption of a new Local Civil Rule – L. Civ. R. 7.1.1 – requiring lawyers to disclose details about third-party litigation funding. The Clerk of the District of New Jersey has now issued a Notice to the Bar clarifying that this new Rule only requires the filing of a statement where third-party litigation funding exists.
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has adopted new Local Civil Rule 7.1.1, requiring lawyers to disclose details about third-party litigation funding. On June 21, 2021, Chief Judge Freda L. Wolfson signed the order formally amending the Rule to include Section 7.1.1.
The Eleventh Circuit recently reinstated a case alleging a surgical tool caused internal burns during a hysterectomy surgery, holding that the district court erred in disqualifying an expert on the basis that he had never before used the tool. The decision is a reminder of the importance of asserting and maintaining precise and strategic Daubert challenges.
In Moore v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 19-10869, the plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic hysterectomy in which her surgeon used a robotic miniature electrified scissor tool manufactured by the defendant. Following surgery, the plaintiff experienced, among other things, abdominal pain and eventually learned she had sustained internal burns to her left ureter during the surgical procedure. The tool was recalled by the manufacturer a few months after the plaintiff’s procedure, and the plaintiff filed suit.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has announced proposed amendments to its Local Civil Rules, including a new rule – Civ. Rule 7.1.1 – regarding “Disclosure of Third-Party Litigation Funding.”
As we previously observed on this blog earlier this year, the exact dollar amount that third-party investors infuse into U.S. lawsuits each year is unknown, but conservative estimates begin at approximately $2.3 billion. Currently, the District of New Jersey’s Local Civil Rules are silent as to litigation funding, but the District is focused on the importance of understanding the parameters of outside litigation funding and a mechanism for requiring disclosure.
The Fifth Circuit held that the 15-year Texas statute of repose barred a family’s claims regarding the rollover of a truck. The court was required to interpret the statutory language “date of the sale of the product,” finding that the repose period started when the automaker transferred the truck to the dealership, and not when it was first sold by the dealer to a customer. The court also held that the Texas tolling exception for minors does not apply to the product liability statute of repose.
The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari without comment in two cases seeking to resolve a Circuit split regarding the proof required to establish that a claim for payment was false or fraudulent under the False Claims Act.
Two Petitioners asked the Court to decide whether the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, requires proof of “objective falsity”, or whether a plaintiff expert’s opinion that differs from the judgment of the defendant is sufficient to show a claim for payment was false or fraudulent under the FCA. Both cases involved allegations that a physician’s certification of medical necessity for hospice services was false, and therefore sufficient to prove plaintiffs’ FCA claims.