A Capehart Scatchard Blog

Archive for March, 2017

Appellate Division Refuses to Enforce Liquidated Damages Clause as Unenforceable Penalty

By on March 31, 2017 in Court Rulings, NJ Litigation with 0 Comments

Plaintiff Jennifer Corona entered into a contract with defendant Stryker Golf, LLC to hold her wedding reception at defendant’s catering hall. The contract price for the entire event was $12,012. Plaintiff paid a deposit of $2500 and then an additional $6,891 in 2 installments for a total of $9,391. Six months before the wedding, she […]

Share

Continue Reading »

Court Dismisses Claim for Punitive Damages Alleged in Auto Accident Case

By on March 17, 2017 in Awards, NJ Litigation with 0 Comments

Sometimes plaintiffs throw in claims for punitive damages in what is obviously a simple negligence claim arising from an automobile accident. In the District Court case, Gillman v. Rakouskas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10835 (D.N.J. Jan. 26, 2017), the plaintiffs George and Florence Gillman sued defendants Michael and Elaine Rakouskas, alleging negligence and gross negligence […]

Share

Continue Reading »

Plaintiff Can Be Compelled to Pay IME Missed Appointment Fee

By on March 10, 2017 in Litigation, NJ Litigation with 0 Comments

Plaintiff Ann McInroy sued Village Supermarket, Inc. for injuries from a slip and fall in its supermarket. Defense counsel scheduled an exam with an IME doctor to examine the plaintiff for her claimed injuries. After 2 missed appointments, the IME doctor sent defense counsel a bill for $375, representing the missed appointment fee for these […]

Share

Continue Reading »

High-low Agreement Barred Award of Attorney’s Fees under Offer of Judgment Rule

By on March 2, 2017 in Awards, NJ Litigation with 0 Comments

Plaintiff Lucia Serico entered into a high-low agreement with defendant Robert M. Rothberg, M.D. to resolve her claim against the defendant. However, in reaching this settlement, plaintiff did not expressly reserve her rights to recover fees under the Offer of Judgment rule. Based upon the jury award, the plaintiff would have been entitled to these […]

Share

Continue Reading »

Top