“Multi-district litigation” is a procedure in which lawsuits filed throughout the federal court system that are amenable to consolidated “mass” treatment are gathered up in one trial court for “pretrial proceedings.”  (The federal statute for “MDL litigation” is here.) The cases are supposed to be remanded for trial in the districts in which the cases were originally brought rather than having tria… Continue reading →

“A bad settlement is better than a good trial,” is the kind of thing a trial lawyer says to a client/plaintiff when recommending a settlement offer that is less than full compensation for the wrong (that is, 99.9% of settlements) when the wronged client balks at the settlement but the trial lawyer thinks it is, on balance, a (relatively) good deal. A very experienced and distinguished Twin Cities trial lawyer, on the other hand, was … Continue reading →

Previously covered here (including Roederer Trial Brief), the bell for Round #1 has rung in this intoxicating clash between top-of-the-line Cristal Champagne and bargain-basket Cristalino cava sparkling wine in a trademark fight filed in January, 2006 — a bench trial before U.S. District Court Judge Joan N. Ericksen that started earlier this week. “Motions in limine,” which literally means, “motions on the threshold,̶… Continue reading →

In civil litigation, well over 90% of cases settle so lawyers’ writing jury instructions is an infrequent and exceptional part of almost every civil litigator’s work-life. (Non-litigators and lay people may be surprised to hear that trial lawyers, rather than the court or the judge write the jury instructions.  In fact, the writing of jury instructions is a collaborative exercise between all of the lawyers on all sides, the judge, th… Continue reading →

Previously, in reference to the “bubbly battle,” Minnesota Litigator touched on the paradoxical strategy of bringing a motion before a Judge to ask the Judge to ignore evidence that the other side will seek to offer at trial (before the same Judge).  Needless to say, the Judge will have to look at the evidence to decide whether to ignore the evidence.  As previously discussed, the counter-intuitive maneuver can actually make sense. I… Continue reading →

Update (2/10/11):  News settles with Insignia after one day of trial for $125 million.  Congratulations to the lawyers of the Chicago office of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, counsel for Insignia, which had to fight every step of the way in this multiyear litigation.  Insignia’s CEO, Scott Drill, is a poker player but there was no bluffing here. Original post (2/7/11):  Minnesota Litigator has heard it said by deeply experienced Minnesota c… Continue reading →

[Update:  Below, a July 22 post in which Minnesota Litigator queried how a case that seemed so simple and seemed to involve a relatively small sum of money (by federal civil litigation standards (at least when litigated by large firms)), could persist and, indeed, head for trial.  The litigants’ trial briefs (here and here) in advance of the jury trial now scheduled before U.S. District Court Judge Patrick J. Schiltz (D. Minn.) in November  seem… Continue reading →

On television, as the courtroom drama reaches its climax, the doors in the back of the courtroom bang open and, lo and behold, the key witness, long thought dead or nonexistent, radically alters the trial’s dynamics and outcome. In the real world, such scenarios are anathema.  The proverbial “trial by ambush” is to be avoided at all costs and the rules of civil procedure are devised to preclude this impediment to the orderly ad… Continue reading →