Twin Cities attorney Douglas Kelley was appointed receiver of the Thomas Petters ponzi scheme empire and, with the help of an army of lawyers from Lindquist & Vennum and elsewhere over the past three years or so, he has been trying to “claw back” money from third-parties who received money at some time or another from Petters.
As “receiver,” Kelley is supposed to “stand in the shoes” of the individuals and/or entities on whose behalf he was appointed receiver.
Attorney John Murrin – of DIAL L-A-W-Y-E-R-S fame – was thrown into involuntary bankruptcy by his creditors after failing to pay over $460,000 in sanctions and costs for pursuing frivolous claims, engaging in bad-faith litigation, and failing to comply with several court orders (which led Hennepin County District Court Judge Denise Reilly to issue a bench warrant) after all of Murrin’s claims were dismissed and he was enjoined from further pursuing claims related to the underlying lawsuit.
Murrin challenged the involuntary bankruptcy, in part, because he claimed that his liabilities were subject of a bona fide dispute. So, what standard did the petitioning creditors need to meet in order to commence the involuntary bankruptcy? Continue reading
The recipe for frozen water is quite widely known so many people are reluctant to pay a great deal of money for frozen water, more widely known as ice, ice cubes, or ice chips.
On the other hand, when you have a party and you don’t have sufficient ice on hand, you’ll plunk down $10 for a few bags, right? But what was the cost to make that ice? Doesn’t the price seem like a heckuvalot more than the actual cost of ice?
Client comes to lawyer to collect a debt from Debtor. Debtor sends check to lawyer to pay the debt. The check “clears” and lawyer sends on the proceeds from the firm’s trust account, less the lawyer’s fee for services, to Client. AOK?
But the check was a forgery, the debt collection was a scam, the money sent to “Client” from the trust account belonged to other clients of Lawyer! But how can this be? The bank told the lawyer the check had “cleared”?! Continue reading
The Minnesota Court of Appeals last week highlighted an important new exception to the general rule that an employee who commits misconduct is not eligible for unemployment compensation.
Last week, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the principle that a union may waive its members’ rights to bring employment-related claims in court and require those claims to be decided in binding arbitration.
Minnesota Litigator is now officially on hiatus until the New Year.
2011 has been an excellent year for Minnesota Litigator! Over 18,000 unique visitors, about 35,000 visits, and, perhaps most importantly, ever-increasing time spent by readers on the site! THANK YOU!!!
Minnesota Litigator’s wishes for the year to come? More of the same! Please keep tips coming! All constructive criticism is eagerly embraced! Huge thanks to Minnesota Litigator guest posters who have joined and contributed over the past year and happy holidays one and all!!!
When a doctor removes a healthy kidney, leaving behind the kidney with the cancer that he was supposed to remove, most would agree a jury does not have to sit and listen to an expert testify that this mistake falls below the appropriate standard of care for medical treatment.
A plaintiff has brought a legal malpractice lawsuit against a lawyer for his failure to properly associate himself with Minnesota counsel, failure therefore to be admitted to practice in a lawsuit brought in Minnesota, and his apparent failure to let the client know that the client was unrepresented in pending litigation. Does this legal malpractice plaintiff need to come up with an expert? Continue reading
The University of Minnesota sued on four patents related to a device used for repairing heart defects (an “occluder,” roughly a “hole-blocker” (here is an image of one kind of occluder). The U of M occluder looks like two umbrellas facing one another, attached at their center-points. The occluder gets snaked through a catheter into the heart. One “umbrella” is opened on one side of a “heart hole,” and then the catheter is pulled back a smidgeon so the other “umbrella” can be opened on the opposite side of the “heart hole,” effectively patching the hole.
U.S. District Court Judge Patrick J. Schiltz (D. Minn.) held that the U of M’s patent was “anticipated” by previous inventions and was therefore invalid. Judge Schiltz distilled a U of M testifying expert’s arguments, on a few key points, down to, “NOT,” and concluded that non-reasoned argument ≠ reason. Ergo, one side in the litigation, the Court found, included reasoned expert opinion backing up its arguments on patent invalidity (AGA Medical), and the other, not, so the U of M lost.
Update (December 21, 2011): Witness A denies having given a statement about an accident but plaintiff’s investigating lawyer is discovered to have written, “Witness A Statement (first draft).” Turns out the witness had handwritten a statement, after all, which was eventually produced. Does the defendant get to take the deposition of the investigating lawyer on the subject of the “not a statement statement”? Yes. But the examination, if it is to go forward, will be strictly limited.
Update (June 23, 2011): To err is human. Here in Minnesota courts, to pounce on an error and exploit it in litigation may be sanctionable.
Original Post (June 20, 2011): On January 14, 2008, the docking of the McCarthy, a one-thousand-foot 36,000 ton ship at Hallett Dock No. 8 in Duluth for winter “lay-up” and general maintenance, did not go as planned. Apparently, as she backed into her parking spot, the McCarthy hit a submerged obstruction, its hull was breached, and she sunk. What did the “lawyer/investigator” do during the aftermath? To whom did he speak? What facts did he gather?
An article in today’s Wall Street Journal discusses an emerging area of family law that has little law to guide practitioners. Family law attorneys typically have plenty of experience dividing property and fostering agreements regarding children; dealing with frozen embryos, however, is another matter entirely.
Recent years have seen breakthroughs in assisted reproductive technology and many couples who would otherwise not have be able to have children have become parents as a result. Often, embryos are created and frozen until needed. But what happens if the “parents” of the unused embryos divorce? If one of the parties wants to use them, but the other no longer wants to be a parent, whose wishes should prevail?
Parties to IVF may try to answer these questions in advance by entering into an agreement, but whether or not the court will enforce the agreement is an open question. In addition, as the article points out, court decisions on these issues are few and divergent in outcome. Minnesota presently has no reported cases on this issue, but it is likely only a matter of time. Until then, practitioners and parties can craft their own agreements, but the cloud of uncertainty will remain.