Litigation

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Important rulings that may affect your practice.

A Manhattan appellate court refused to relinquish jurisdiction over a custody case in which a mother fled with her 5-year-old son to Italy because she thought she was not getting a fair hearing in a New York Family Court. In an unusual ruling in late December 2007, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the conclusion of Manhattan Family Court that the case belonged in the Italian courts.

Family lawyers with cases involving application of Section 105(c) of the UCCJEA need to marshal Internet and other resources to determine whether the child custody law of a foreign jurisdiction violates a child's fundamental right to safety and protection. Although Section 105(c) does not provide a broad exception to the otherwise stringent standards of the UCCJEA, in cases where a child's welfare is threatened by deferral of jurisdiction to a foreign tribunal or enforcement of a foreign order, a trial court can invoke Section 105(c) to circumvent application of the UCCJEA's rigorous jurisdictional and enforcement provisions.

Recent rulings you need to know.

Sky-high loss enhancements are increasingly scrutinized in a post-Booker world. Drawing on civil securities law, recent decisions in several circuits endorse an approach holding a defendant responsible for only the portion of victims' losses that was proximately caused by the offense. Some courts' critical analyses bode well for future sentencings.

The U.S. Supreme Court in February tackled an issue that has come up frequently in lawsuits brought by plaintiffs claiming they've been injured by medical devices: Do the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 preempt state law-based claims against device manufacturers? The Court had partially answered the question in Lohr v. Medtronic, but the fact situation in that case did not necessarily make its decision applicable to other cases against medical devices manufacturers.

Federal government attorneys recently unsuccessfully attempted to convince a Federal District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to rewrite the terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act ('FTCA') to allow the creation of a reversionary trust rather than give a lump-sum award to pay for a medical malpractice plaintiff's future medical expenses.