Skip to main content

$100 Million Lawsuit Gets Tossed Over Statute of Limitations

A recent case from an appeals court involved two heavyweight (i.e., "expensive") law firms, White & Case and Arnold & Porter, fighting over the statute of limitations of a malpractice lawsuit. (The plaintiff originally used another firm.) 

In the case, EB Brands Holdings sued its accountants for malpractice for, among other things, over-stating asset accounts (accounts receivable and inventories), which EB claims harmed and mislead its Board of Directors in making decisions. The agreement said that any lawsuits against the accountants had to be brought within two years of the subject audit report. The lawsuit sought damages of $100 million.

EB first brought suit in New York County, but the lawsuit was dismissed "without prejudice"--meaning EB could've fixed the problems in the complaint and re-filed it. Instead, EB brought a new lawsuit in Westchester County and abandoned its New York County case. But by then the two-year statute of limitations had ended. 

In the Westchester case, the defendant accountants made a motion to dismiss based on the two-year statute of limitations and won. EB appealed the decision, but the appeals court said nope, the two years was up, and no exceptions were applicable. Considering the firepower of their lawyers, I'm sure they argued everything possible. 

Sounds like EB should've stuck with the New York County case!

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Respond to Demands for Evidence or Be Prepared to Have Your Case Thrown Out!

The evidence or fact-gathering phase of a lawsuit is called "discovery". Each party is entitled to demand various kinds of evidence from the other party or parties in preparation for a possible trial. Two common kinds of discovery demands are a "Demand for Discovery and Inspection" and "Interrogatories" (which are written questions, answered in writing, under oath). (Psst: Interrogatories are basically a waste of time, but that will be left for another day.) In a recent decision , a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories. You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how yo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Dave & Buster’s Held Not Liable For Stabbing of Customer

When you operate a restaurant or a bar, etc., sometimes customers get attacked by other customers/patrons--for whatever reason. So when can the restaurant be held liable in situations like that? In what is a horrible story, in 2010, an 8-year-old boy was at a Dave & Buster’s with his family at The Source Mall in Westbury. The boy was playing a game when he was suddenly attacked and stabbed 5 times in the back by a 23-year-old man who testified in the case that he went there to stab someone.  [The man plead guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to 14 years in prison .] The boy (through his parents) sued the attacker (who has no money, I assume), Dave & Buster’s, and the Mall. The boy alleged Dave & Buster’s failed to provide adequate security, which would have prevented the attack. Dave & Buster’s got the case dismissed against them at the trial court level, and the boy appealed. In a recent decision, the Second Department affirmed that...
Post a Comment
Read more