Courtroom Views is pleased to welcome special guest Amy Singer, Ph.D., Founder and CEO of Trial Consultants, Inc.  Dr. Singer is a nationally recognized authority in the field of litigation psychology, a discipline which she helped to pioneer.  In addition, Dr. Singer has also authored a number of books and articles on litigation strategy, including Trials and Deliberations: Inside the Jury Room, published by West.

Courtroom View Network is pleased to announce the launch of CVN Law School, a law student web portal integrating audio and video legal information to give students at 50+ law schools the most powerful way to learn the law.

AudioCaseFiles will be rebranded to become Courtroom View Network Law School (CVN Law School). The new website will be unveiled at the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) annual conference in Denver, July 10-13. This new website will be available at lawschool.courtroomview.com.

This move continues the integration between AudioCaseFiles and CVN. AudioCaseFiles is an online resource geared to law students and faculty that offers audio opinions of precedential judicial opinions. Over the last two years, AudioCaseFiles has also provided users with access to Courtroom View Network’s real trial video of prominent attorneys in compelling civil litigation. This move will fully integrate the two websites, making AudioCaseFiles a product of CVN Law School, CVN’s new law student portal.

“We are really excited about this latest upgrade to our law school offering,” said Stanley Goldberg, VP of Operations. “This transition will allow us to continue to add more content, more features, and be more responsive to our subscribers’ needs, while creating a seamless learning experience from law school to associate.”

The transition to CVN Law School will give AudioCaseFiles subscribers continued access to all previous content, and also provide new features from Courtroom View Network, such as legal news, an improved interface and improved functionality. The purpose of the change, according to Goldberg, is to “Even better prepare law students for their future as attorneys, from learning to doing.”

Law schools that currently subscribe to AudioCaseFiles will continue to use their same credentials to log in. CVN Law School will also offer individual subscriptions to law students whose law school does not subscribe.

To see the new website unveiling, visit the AudioCaseFiles / Courtroom View Network at Booth 515, at July’s AALL conference. 

View the Press Release. 

Opening statements were heard Tuesday in CVN’s webcast of Andersen Builders v. Kritikos.

According to plaintiff attorney Jack Seiler, the case was very simple: “Andersen Builders did the work, did it well, got fired, and didn’t get paid.” Thirty-two consecutive payment applications were submitted by Andersen and were paid without objection. According to Seiler, the owner, Chris Kritikos, got in an argument with the architect, Peter Gluck. As a result of this dispute, Andersen was not paid for its last eight draws, totaling $548K.

According to defense attorney Louis Mrachek, representing owner Chris Kritikos, the owner was given an estimate of $4.1M and 14 months to complete the house, but the house was nowhere near done at the promised time or promised price. Mrachek said that Andersen had no experience building this type of high-end house, and that Andersen overcharged for the work. At the time the home should have been completed, $5.4M had been spent, the work was only 50-65% completed, and the budget had increased to $8M.

Ted Mortell, representing architect Peter Gluck, said that the owner requested significant changes, such as switching the exterior from stucco to marble, which increased both the price and slowed the construction. Also, said Mortell, Mr. Gluck is a world-renowned architect whose plans were not negligently prepared. Finally, although the project may have been 65% completed, it was nonetheless only a few months from completion, because the last 35% would not have taken as long as the first 35%.

Watch CVN’s webcast of Andersen v. Kritikos. 

Hon. Thomas B. Smith received the jury’s verdict in Field Motorcars v. Kirrigin.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on all claims related to the plaintiff’s long-term ponzi scheme, including conspiracy, fraud, and racketeering. The jury awarded damages of $2.5M.

Watch Field BMW v. Carlos Kirrigin webcast on CVN. 

A Florida jury awarded $2.4M to a couple whose home was severely damaged by defective Chinese Drywall sold by Banner Supply. CVN webcast Seifart v. Banner Supply live.

In his closing argument, plaintiff attorney Ervin Gonzales told the jury,

“This is actually a very sad case, because it’s a case about a Chinese Drywall cover-up. And the reason it’s a sad case is because this is a case where a lot of damage occurred, and could have all been prevented. And it could have been prevented by one company, that’s sitting right here: Banner. They had the last chance, the last opportunity, to prevent the damage.  And instead, they chose to do the right thing, not for consumers, not for homeowners, not for general contractors, not for developers, but for themselves. Because it was good for their business. So the decided to keep their secret, about their knowledge of the defect of the Chinese Drywall, to themselves. To themselves, for years. It’s always been in the dark. And when does the light shine through on the truth? As a result of this lawsuit.”

Gonzalez requested economic damages of $705,359, approximately $3.2M for loss of enjoyment ($100K per month from March 2008 to February 2011), and diminution of value or “stigma” damages of $200K, because the fact that the house had endured remediation for defective drywall would have to be disclosed to any future buyer. According to Gonzalez, if a purchaser had to choose between two identical houses, one of which had previously had Chinese drywall, the buyer could be expected to prefer the house that had never had Chinese drywall.

Defense attorney Todd Ehrenreich argued that Banner had behaved responsibly. Banner acted responsibly in obtaining the Chinese drywall because no other drywall sources were available, and its supplier, Knauf, was reputable. In fact, Banner did not even know that its drywall had been sourced from China until after the product arrived. Nonetheless, Banner had reason to believe that the Chinese drywall met U.S. standards.

Moreover, said Ehrenreich, complaints about a “funky smell” came from just five homes out of 2700 in south Florida, which had received Banner boards — perhaps 500 boards out of 1.89M boards sold –

“I don’t have a calculator, but I guaranty you it’s less than one percent of one percent…Folks, literally, piece by piece pulling out this board, nobody in the warehouse is saying anything that there’s a smell, no drywaller is saying there’s a smell, no new homeowner is coming in saying there’s a smell, nobody in the industry is saying there’s a smell, but five houses.”

Ehrenreich argued that Knauf was only willing to provide replacement boards if Banner signed a confidential settlement agreement providing that the Knauf boards were not defective and agreeing not to sue Knauf. According to Ehrenreich, Banner would never have given up its rights if they had known that the board was in fact defective. It was Knauf that hid the truth, said Ehrenreich.

Because the defect in the drywall was latent, hidden, and undetectable, Banner did not know about the defect until years later, said Ehrenreich, and there is nothing else that Banner could have done.

Ehrenreich said loss of enjoyment damages should not be awarded because the Seifarts had lived in a similar or better house within two miles of their original house. Further, there should be no stigma losses awarded, argued Ehrenreich, because the house would have been demonstrably fully repaired.

The jury found that in favor of the plaintiff on theories of strict liability, negligence, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, and private nuisance.

The jury allocated liability as follows: Banner Supply: 55%; Knopf Plasterboard: 35%; La Suprema Enterprise (a drywall importer): 5%, Rothschild International (a drywall exporter): 5%.

The jury awarded damages of $2.465M, including $494K in remediation costs, $169K in temporary housing and moving costs, $1.7M in loss of enjoyment, and $60K in “stigma” damage to the value of the home.

CVN webcast the Seifart Chinese Drywall trial live.

CVN webcast the opening statements in Field Motorcars v. Prime Wholesalers.

According to Greenberg Traurig’s Ron Schirtzer, star BMW salesperson Carlos Kirrigin ran a 12-year ponzi scheme that cost Field Motorcars over $5M. The ponzi scheme allegedly involved sales of BMWs to brokers and dealers in Puerto Rico that were made to appear as sales to end-users at prices higher by $1K-$3K than the actual sale price. Prime Wholesalers, for example, allegedly opened a fictitious account to conceal the true purchaser. With the help of fraudulent invoices, fictitious names, and transfers from bank to bank, said Schirtzer, Kirrigan was able to sustain the scheme.

The scheme was allegedly financed partly by outside investors. In addition, said Schirtzer, Kirrigin was buying and selling cars from sources other than from Fields, with Fields partly subsidizing this outside operation. Kirrigin also allegedly borrowed money from the next sale to pay for the prior sale, and eventually the scheme imploded.

Representing himself, Carlos Kirrigan argued that he was not greedy in a bad way, because that is what this capitalism is about. Kirrigan said he was the hardest working salesperson, but was no greedier than anyone else.  In fact, his efforts were an important part of the dealership’s ability to grow rapidly.

Over 16+ years, Kirrigan said, there were thousands and thousands of transactions, and nothing had changed throughout the years. Why would they only notice red flags after more than a decade? 

Kirrigan said that every car dealership is a “ponzi scheme” in the sense that there’s money coming in and money going out, and there’s a float. If there was a conspiracy, said Kirrigan, it must have started at the top of the organization, where the benefits of his efforts allowed them to transform the dealership from a small store to a “Taj Majal.”

From 1991 until he was dismissed in 2008, Kirrigan said, he was advancing the cause of Fields BMW, serving Fields BMW’s market, working enormous hours, bringing in astronomical numbers, which significant benefitted Fields, and no one ever complained. ”It’s not like they only had a meeting once every nine years,” said Kirrigan.

Kirrigan said he also did deals elsewhere, but he gave Fields as much business as he could, and possibly as much as they could handle.

Watch CVN’s webcast of Fields BMW v. Kirrigan.

A mistrial was declared in Boca Aviation v. Proskauer Rose after two full days of deliberation.  Apparently the jury was unable to reach a verdict. A re-trial is not expected soon.

CVN webcast the Boca Aviation trial live. Court video of the entire trial is now available on-demand.

Please visit CVN’s Engle Verdict Tracker at its now home:

CVN’s Engle Verdict Tracker

and stay up to date on the latest Engle-progeny tobacco verdicts, as well as the trends.

CVN webcast live the closing arguments in Boca Aviation v. Proskauer Rose, and the jury is now deliberating.

In closing, plaintiff attorney Steven Katzman said, “This case is about Boca Aviation giving up something of value — the 15th Amendment — for nothing at all — the 19th Amendment…The cure was worse than the disease,” Katzman argued, “because we already had the right to put hangars on those 15 acres…and at [our lawyer's] insistence that we were fully protected, we listened to our lawyer…and we gave up that 15th Amendment.”

“If only our [our attorney] had said, ‘Hey, it’s impossible. You’ve given me an impossible job to do. Stick with the 15th Amendment: it’s valid and enforceable.”

According to Katzman, Boca’s attorney should have recognized that the 15th Amendment was valid, and advised Boca not to give up the “bird in the hand,” which was the 15th Amendment. The overwhelming evidence in the case, said Katzman, was that the 15th Amendment was valid, becase the need for hangars was affirmed by witness after witness, and by the airport authority’s own documents.

Boca requested damages of $64,363,646, but noted that this figure might be a too-conservative estimate of the lost profits.

For the defense, Boies Schiller attorney Mark Heise asserted that Proskauer was not negligent and did not breach any fiduciary duty.

The thing that Boca wanted done — the creation of a 19th Amendment that protected Boca’s position as the sole gas station at the airport — could not be done. In fact, the judge had ruled as a matter of law that no such Amendment could have been drafted.

According to Heise, Boca could only prevail if it showed that Proskauer gave a guarantee on the 19th Amendment, and that Proskauer should have known that the 15th Amendment would have served Boca better. Heise explained that a different lawyer who specialized in Aviation Law was responsible for that determination, not Proskauer.

But in any event, the effectiveness of the 15th Amendment would have depended on the airport authority’s willingness to fight the FAA, which the airport made clear it would not have done, and the FAA’s willingness to reverse a finding of an exclusive rights violation, which the FAA had never previously done. Plus, Boca would not have been able to establish the facts necessary to challenge the FAA ruling, because it was possible for another operator to provide service at the airport without taking land from Boca or creating an undue burden.

The FAA’s finding of that the 15th Amendment caused an exclusive rights violation, said Heise, made the 15th Amendment unenforceable. Therefore, the 15th Amendment was worth nothing, or at least its value was in reasonable doubt. Proskauer stated clearly in writing that the 19th Amendment did not fully protect Boca’s interest, but was proposed as a good strategy in response to the damage the FAA had done to the value of the 15th Amendment.

“How many times have we heard about the ‘bird in the hand?’” asked Heise. “If we look at the evidence…it makes it clear that Boca Aviation absolutely knew they didn’t have a guarantee…They knew it before this lawsuit. They knew it when they were sitting in this courtroom telling you they had a full guarantee.”

In rebuttal, Searcy Denney’s Jack Scarola argued that the legal advice given to Boca was grossly negligent because Boca was told that the 19th Amendment would as a practical matter prevent a new fuel provider from serving the airport because the flexibility that it provided would in reality leave no place to dispense fuel. According to Scarola there turned out to be additional risks associated with trading the 15th for the 19th Amendment, because the 19th Amendment turned out to be worth nothing.

As for the validity of the 15th Amendment, said Scarola, the airport authority was contractually bound under the Master Lease to defend Boca Aviation’s lease rights before the FAA unless they were voluntarily relinquished.  Those rights were voluntarily relinquished, according to Scarola, because they got bad advice about the value of the 19th Amendment.

Scarola also asserted that there never was a final decision by the FAA, only a preliminary determination without a hearing. Nor was the unlikelihood that the FAA would reverse its decision established by its prior record of not reversing this kind of decision, because Boca Aviation’s was in fact the first proceeding under the rule.

CVN webcast the Boca Aviation v. Proskauer Rose trial live.