Tag Archives: Breach of Contract

Three Schneider & Onofry Attorneys Featured in Arizona Attorney for Recent Jury Verdicts

Posted on October 3, 2012 | Leave a comment

Schneider & Onofry attorneys Chuck Onofry, Luane Rosen, and Tim O’Connor were recently recognized in Arizona Attorney Magazine Jury Verdicts Section for significant recent jury verdicts. Onofry and Rosen were featured in the “Case of the Month,” while O’Connor’s verdict was featured in a Weekly Highlight.

In Arellano v. Primerica Life Ins., Onofry and Rosen served as co-counsels for plaintiff Miriam Arellano in a life insurance dispute claim. There, plaintiff’s husband applied for a 15-year $100,000 life insurance policy with Primerica Life Insurance company in October 2006. The benefit was subsequently increased to $150,000 and $106.28 in claims were paid by the plaintiff in November 2006. In March 2007, the plaintiff’s husband died and Primerica Life denied the plaintiff’s $150,000 claim for benefits. The insurer denied the claim on the grounds that the insured had failed to disclose a history of a heart condition and had failed to provide blood and urine samples as required by the policy.

Following denial of the claim, the plaintiff brought an action against Primerica and its agents in Maricopa County Superior Court alleging breach of contract, bad faith, insurer producer malpractice, breach of contract to procure insurance, forgery, promissory estoppel, waiver, doctrine of reasonable expectations, consumer fraud, negligence and fraud. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the negligence, breach of contract, bad faith, insurance producer malpractice, forgery and promissory estoppel counts for a total of $591,786 in damages. In addition, the jury awarded the plaintiff $1,117,572 in punitive damages.

Similarly, in Barrio v. Alan Masonry, et al., Tim O’Connor serve as counsel to the general contractor in a case involving injuries sustained from falling from a scaffolding. There, the plaintiff alleged that the general contractor and the masonry subcontractor, failed to provide a safe workplace, causing the plaintiff to fall from the scaffolding. While the jury returned a $108,263 verdict for the plaintiff, the jury placed the majority of fault on Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s employer, and the masonry subcontractor.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Britney Spears Using a Conversatorship to Shield Herself from Being Deposed?

Posted on March 18, 2012 | Leave a comment

 

Could a person not be mentally competent to testify under oath in a deposition but be mentally competent to be a judge on a major TV talent show?

This is issue has recently arisen in a recent lawsuit brought against Britney Spears by a former manager. According to Forbes, in 2008, a court established a conversatorship for Britney Spears where her father served as the conversator. Under the conversatorship, Britney is presumed mentally incompetent and her father is entrusted with making all of her legal decisions.

In 2011, licensing company Brand Sense sued Britney and her father for breach of contract involving $10 million in unpaid royalties from brokering Britney’s successful fragrance with Elizabeth Arden. As part of the lawsuit, Brand Sense attempted to depose Britney. Britney’s father argued that, because of the conversatorship, Britney was not mentally competent to sit through a deposition. Brand Sense countered that Britney was indeed competent enough to sit through a deposition because she was able to perform in concerts, do media interviews, and parent her children. If she could those things, Brand Sense argued, it followed that she could answer a few questions in a deposition.

Consequently, the trial court judge disagreed and ruled that Brand Sense could not depose Britney. In addition, the judge ruled that Brand Sense could not obtain Britney’s medical records and challenge her mental competency.

Forbes also reports that following the competency battle, Spears and Brand Sense settled the breach of contract claim out of court. Spears then reportedly settled a second sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a former male body-guard. However, Forbes indicates that there is still a third lawsuit that is ongoing – a lawsuit brought by Spears’ former manager Sam Lufti for breach of contract, libel and defamation – that is slated for trial in September 2012.

In the third lawsuit, Spears’ mental competency is again at issue as the plaintiff would undoubtedly want to depose her. The problem this time, however, is that Spears’ recent commercial activities makes it harder for her conservator to assert that she is not mentally competent to give a deposition. It has widely been reported that Spears has been in talks with the X Factor talent TV show to serve as one of the celebrity judges. As a judge, Spears would evaluate talent, approve and reject contestants, and offer witty banter. Forbes notes the problem such a role would cause with Spear’s mental incompetency argument:

This of course raises the question. If she’s competent enough to serve as a talent judge on a major TV network television show, how in the world can she be so incompetent that she can’t make her own decisions? Singing on stage is one thing. She’s been doing that since she was a child. 

But talking, off-script, making talent judgments and providing what would expected to be witty or insightful commentary? Can someone incompetent do that?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Court Finds 65-Million Document Discovery Order Excessive

Posted on December 22, 2011 | Leave a comment

In contract dispute cases involving large organizations, discovery can produce enormous amounts of documents and can require significant amounts of time and resources to screen and review all of the relevant documents. With the potential for extremely high discovery costs, efficient litigation and cost management have become more important than ever in today’s business environment.

A recent federal case highlights the dangers of carelessness and inattention in electronic discovery. Law Technology News reports that in I-Med Pharma, Inc. v. Biomatrix Inc., I-Med sued Biomatrix (who later merged with Genzyme) for breaching contracts that gave I-Med the exclusive Canadian distribution rights for Biomatrix eye care products. In a May 2010 discovery stipulation, I-Med agreed to allow a forensic search of its computer network and servers that would search for documents using 58 specified keywords. The search was not limited to any time periods and included unallocated disk space – which included deleted and temporary files.

A search of the 58 keywords by an expert found 187,796 active files and more than 250 gigabytes of data just in the deleted files. Even more, there were more than 65 million hits and more than 90 million pages, indicating “an extraordinary level of document destruction” by I-Med.

As the discovery deadline approached, I-Med asked Genzyme to agree to limit discovery to only the deleted files from a laptop used by a Genzyme employee who had admitted to deleting emails during a deposition. Genzyme refused, claiming that the modification violated an extensively negotiated process for e-discovery. I-Med that asked the magistrate to alter the terms of the stipulation due to the impossibility of complying with the discovery request without incurring outrageous expense. The magistrate agreed with I-Med, and amended the discovery order to only the employee’s laptop for “good cause.”

Genzyme appealed the magistrate’s order to the District Court, claiming that the magistrate had applied an incorrect undue burden standard. The District Court judge affirmed the magistrate’s ruling, and held that the modified order was a reasonable exercise of the magistrate’s discretion in managing discovery. The judge further explained the rationale for limiting discovery:

“A privilege review of 65 million documents is no small undertaking. . . . Even if junior attorneys are engaged, heavily discounted rates are negotiated, and all parties work diligently and efficiently, even a cursory review of that many documents will consume large amounts of attorney time and cost millions of dollars.”

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

New York Man Sues Wedding Photographers Demanding $48,000 to Recreate the Entire Wedding

Posted on November 3, 2011 | Leave a comment

The New York Times today reports an unusual lawsuit involving a New York man frustrated with his wedding photographers. In 2003, Todd Remis married a Latvian woman and hired H & H Photographers to photograph his wedding. Remis paid the photographers $4,100, but was upset that the photographers failed to capture the last 15 minutes of the ceremony – which included the last dance and bouquet toss. Remis alleged that the photographers failed to respond to him in a “courtly fashion.” He also complained that the photographs were “unacceptable to color, lighting, poses, position” and the wedding video was too short – two hours long rather than six hours as expected.

In 2008, Remis and his bride separated, and they finalized their divorce in 2010. His ex-wife then returned to Latvia. In 2009, Remis sued the photographers right before the statute of limitations was set to expire.

In his lawsuit, Remis demanded not only to be repaid the $4,100 he paid the photographers, but he also demanded $48,000 – the cost of recreating the entire wedding. He asserted that he wanted to fly back certain weeding participants so that the wedding celebration could be re-shot and commemorated by another photographer.

The problem with Remis’ proposed recreation is that his ex-wife has not been located in Latvia, and there is no indication that she would be willing to participate in the recreation. On a similar note, would the other wedding participants be willing to potentially take time off from work and travel to recreate a wedding of an unsuccessful marriage?

The Times notes that a New York judge dismissed Remis’ infliction of emotional distress claim, but has allowed the case to proceed to determine whether there was a breach of contract.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , ,