Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>Practice Tip</b></i> Lone Pine Orders Increase Judicial Efficiency
In recent years, an increasing number of state and federal courts nationwide have issued 'Lone Pine orders' ' case management orders that require plaintiffs in mass tort litigation to substantiate their claims early in the litigation. Jurisdictions are split on whether to permit Lone Pine orders, which typically require plaintiffs to submit evidence, often in the form of expert affidavits or reports, of each plaintiff's exposure to toxic substances, each plaintiff's claim of illness, personal injury or property damage, and a causation link between the exposure and the injury. Simeone v. Girard City Bd. of Ed., 171 Ohio App.3d 633, 640-641, 872 N.E.2d 344, 349 (Ct. App., 11th Dist. 2007) ('Under such an order, plaintiffs are required to submit reports or affidavits that identify the chemical or substance causing the injury, the specific disease, illness or injury caused by the substance, and the causal link between the exposure and injury in order to substantiate their health and property-value claims to a reasonable degree of probability or certainty').
On the one hand, some jurisdictions have permitted Lone Pine orders because these orders expedite a mass tort case. Defendants are eager to obtain the entry of such orders because plaintiffs' claims will be dismissed if they are unable to substantiate their injuries, even though plaintiffs have not had full discovery. On the other hand, some jurisdictions have refused to issue Lone Pine orders on the grounds that such orders improperly limit plaintiffs' right to discovery and place an unfair burden upon the plaintiffs, akin to summary judgment. Upon analysis, we believe a Lone Pine order is an excellent tool to protect against the waste of time, money, and judicial resources, because plaintiffs in mass tort litigation should be prepared to substantiate their claims to a reasonable degree at the time they commence a lawsuit. See FRCP 11.
Origin of Lone Pine Orders
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.