Michael Manfredi (Partner-Atlanta, GA) and Jennafer Groswith (Partner-Dallas, TX) secured summary judgment for SWD Urethane, an Arizona-based spray polyurethane foam manufacturer, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiff alleged that SWD manufactured defective and toxic spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation applied in her home during a November 2020 renovation. Upon returning, she claimed to experience a range of symptoms –including headaches, breathing difficulties, chest tightness, and rashes – which she attributed to SPF exposure. The plaintiff brought claims against SWD for strict product liability (design defect), negligent product liability (design defect), failure to warn, negligence per se, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. 

Mickey and Jennafer moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including the plaintiff's failure to respond to SWD's requests for admissions, which were deemed admitted, and the absence of competent evidence connecting SWD to the SPF installed in the plaintiff's home. In opposing the motion, the plaintiff relied on unverified air quality expert reports and a late-disclosed medical causation affidavit from her treating physician to establish the causal link between the SPF and her injuries. Wilson Elser successfully moved to strike or exclude these submissions, arguing that the air quality reports were unsworn and, therefore, did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements for consideration on summary judgment, and that the treating physician’s causation testimony constituted undisclosed expert opinion offered after the close of discovery. The court agreed and excluded all three expert reports.

With the expert evidence excluded, the plaintiff was left with only a single invoice between SWD and the co-defendant installer as purported proof that SWD manufactured the SPF at issue. Mickey and Jennafer argued that the invoice was insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact, as it did not establish that the products listed were SPF, that they were used in the plaintiff's home, or that SWD was the manufacturer rather than merely a seller. The court agreed that no reasonable jury could conclude from the invoice alone that SWD manufactured the SPF applied in the plaintiff's home, granted summary judgment on all claims and dismissed SWD from the case with prejudice, and awarded its costs.

Gregg Tatarka (Partner-White Plains, NY) ​Suna Lee (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) and Samantha Marrelli (Associate-White Plains, NY) prevailed on a motion to dismiss in Bergen County Superior Court, New Jersey, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s global consumer electronics company client. In this product liability case, the plaintiff, a North Carolina corporation, filed a lawsuit in New Jersey against our client and a national lease-to-own retailer. The plaintiff alleged that its insureds, Missouri residents, sustained damage to their Missouri property from a 2024 fire caused by an allegedly defective product​ supplied by our client and the codefendant retailer.

Although the alleged incident, property damage, insureds, and all fact witnesses – including those involved in the fire investigation and subsequent inspection and repair – were located in Missouri, the plaintiff filed suit in New Jersey, relying primarily on the state being our client’s principal place of business. However, the plaintiff’s causes of action were based in Missouri case law. In lieu of filing an answer, Suna and Samantha moved to dismiss under forum non conveniens, demonstrating that New Jersey had no meaningful connection to the dispute and that Missouri was the appropriate forum.

In their reply to the plaintiff and codefendant’s opposition to the motion, which proved paramount to winning the case by distinguishing between the facts and the claimed case law, Suna and Samantha underscored that the plaintiff is a North Carolina corporation, the plaintiff’s insureds are Missouri residents, and Wilson Elser’s client is a New York corporation with a principal place of business in New Jersey. Additionally, they emphasized the absence of any reported decision, permitting a non-resident plaintiff to pursue out-of-state claims under that state's law, surviving a forum non conveniens challenge.

The court agreed and dismissed the action with prejudice, sparing our client from litigating a Missouri-based loss in an improper forum.

Nicholas J. Kauffman (Partner-New York, NY) and Jordan Meisner (Of Counsel-New York, NY) obtained the plaintiff’s voluntary discontinuance (with prejudice) of its construction product liability subrogation action that sought damages against our client rubber company of approximately $7 million plus interest after they aggressively filed a post-answer motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7) and (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction arising from improper service of process that failed to comply with New York’s BCL §306(b)(1). The plaintiff’s alleged damages arose from a leak in a hot water riser at a New York City hotel that contained our client’s elastomeric expansion joint. Nick and Jordan conducted significant due diligence and investigation and were able to proffer evidence to argue that our client was never served with the complaint. They argued that although the body of the complaint referred to our client, the caption named a non-related entity and the plaintiff could only prove service on that entity via the New York Secretary of State. Jordan’s research was critical as he found a recently decided Second Department case that was directly on point and persuaded the plaintiff that it did not have a good-faith basis to continue its action after our motion was fully briefed and submitted.

Michael Lowry (Partner-Las Vegas, NV) was retained to represent a manufacturer against a water loss subrogation claim at a luxury home near Lake Tahoe. The homeowner's insurer alleged the client's water system equipment was defective and caused extensive damage to the home. The subrogating insurer timely filed suit but failed to timely open discovery. The Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada, agreed the subrogating insurer failed to present compelling and extraordinary circumstances to excuse the delay. Michael's motion to dismiss was granted.

Partners Paul Dougherty (Los Angeles, CA), Greg Lee (Los Angeles, CA), and Taylor Allin (Phoenix, AZ) with Shirley Jin (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA) prevailed on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of a Chinese tire manufacturer based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The lawsuit arose from a highway rollover accident in which the rear tire of the plaintiff’s motorcycle, which had been manufactured at the client’s plant in Jiangsu, China, experienced a tread/belt separation. The plaintiff argued that the Chinese client had sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona based on, among other things, marketing and sales throughout the United States, a website, authorized retailers in Arizona, and the issuance of a recall by a domestic subsidiary that allegedly impacted Arizona. After taking the motion to dismiss under submission for more than nine months, the district judge ultimately agreed with the defense team that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of establishing sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona, and granted their motion to dismiss without leave to amend. 

Nicholas D. Freeman (Partner-Orlando, FL), J. Peter Greco (Of Counsel-Orlando, FL), and Donna Krusbe (Of Counsel-West Palm Beach, FL) obtained a full dismissal with prejudice in a federal product liability case arising from a fatal vehicle crash. The firm represented a component parts manufacturer accused of designing and supplying a defective trailer axle alleged to have contributed to the incident. The plaintiff alleged that a defective trailer axle required the decedent to stop on the highway, and that resulted in the decedent being struck by another motorist.  Nick, Peter, and Donna successfully argued that there was an unrelated motor vehicle collision that was the true proximate cause of the collision with the decedent, and it was unforeseeable that an alleged axle failure could result in a death under those circumstances. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida agreed and dismissed all claims with prejudice. 

Andrew J. Heck (Partner-Madison, NJ), assisted by Mellis Bakir (Associate-Madison, NJ), obtained summary judgment in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Cape May County, for Wilson Elser's client, a manufacturer and developer of durable tools and accessories. The plaintiff suffered water damage to his property when water condensate pumps manufactured by the client allegedly leaked. The co-defendant/third-party plaintiff that installed the allegedly defective pumps filed a Third-Party Complaint against the client, raising allegations of design and manufacturing failures. After engaging in preliminary discovery, it became evident that the third-party plaintiff had “lost” possession of the pumps, after it had conducted an inspection of same, despite the pumps being labeled “not trash.” Andrew and Mellis argued that the third-party plaintiff could not prove a case against the client without the at-issue pumps. Essentially, due to this spoliation, the client no longer had a chance to inspect the pumps and get their own experts to opine as to their condition. They further argued that no photographs or exemplars would suffice to remedy the prejudice, and even if they moved to bar the third-party plaintiff’s experts from testifying at trial based on their inspection of the alleged pumps, it would necessarily lead to the same result that they were now seeking, which was dismissal of the claims against the client. As a result, the court granted Wilson Elser's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against the client with prejudice.

Rebecca Young (Partner-Birmingham, AL) and Porter Simpler (Associate-Birmingham, AL) obtained dismissal on a motion for summary judgment in Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The plaintiff alleged she suffered catastrophic crush injuries to her foot and $3.7 million in damages resulting from use of a defective work safety shoe. The plaintiff alleged our shoe company client misrepresented the extent of the shoe's safety and, in addition to compensatory and punitive damages, sought a statewide injunction enjoining the sale of the shoe in all manufacturing areas with crush risk hazards and for our client to issue refunds to past consumers. In response, Rebecca and Porter filed a motion for summary judgment arguing their client did not have the requisite connection to the safety design and sale of the shoe to create liability under Alabama law. It was undisputed that our client’s company name was included on the shoe at issue, but Rebecca and Porter explained that this by itself was not enough to create liability, and presented evidence demonstrating the company was not involved in the specific safety design and did not have any interaction with the plaintiff to support the misrepresentation claims. In opposition to these arguments, the plaintiff submitted numerous business organization records claiming that the defendant was operating as the same entity that was responsible for the licensing of the product. At the hearing on the summary judgment, the plaintiff’s counsel argued that he needed more time to gather information about the corporate structure of our client but later conceded there was inadequate evidence to create liability. The court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice.

Russ Vignali (Senior Counsel-White Plains, NY) and Ellen Bowman (Of Counsel-Las Vegas, NV) represented several clients involved in a product’s design and manufacture in a case involving an allegedly defective nail gun venued in the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada. On behalf of another client – the entity that licensed its well-known trade name to the nail gun’s retailer – Russ and Ellen moved for summary judgment on the grounds that, as a mere “licensor,” the entity was not truly in the nail gun’s chain of distribution and could not therefore be strictly liable for any design or manufacturing defect. The issue was one of first impression for Nevada courts. For that reason, the District Court certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Nevada:

Does Nevada impose strict products liability on an entity whose only involvement with a defective or unreasonably dangerous product is to license its trademark to be used to market the product and where the product and packaging prominently display its trademark?

Russ and Ellen emphasized a modern trend around the country that has protected companies that merely license their trade name but otherwise play no role in the product’s design and development. They cited the importance of product licensing in the modern American economy and the chilling effect that an adverse ruling would have in Nevada, where the gaming industry in particular relies so heavily on licensing and the use of trademarks. After significant briefing on both sides of the issue, including the filing of amicus briefs, the Nevada Supreme Court (in a 5-2 decision issued on May 1^, 2925) answered the certified question in the negative – marking a major victory for trademark owners operating in Nevada who license their trade names but exercise no control over the product’s final design and quality control.

The underlying case will continue against the remaining defendants.

Portland, Oregon, partners George S. Pitcher and Dmitriy S. Golosinskiy prevailed on a motion to dismiss on behalf of a major U.S. truck manufacturer due to plaintiffs’ spoliation of evidence. The plaintiffs, operating a client-manufactured truck owned by their employer, were hospitalized after rear-ending a stopped tractor-trailer. After the collision, they emailed their employer, stating they had retained a lawyer, demanding preservation of the vehicle, and threatening to seek spoliation sanctions if it was lost or destroyed. The plaintiffs’ experts inspected the vehicle and identified components to be preserved. The employer sold the truck, which our client did not have an opportunity to inspect. The court found “culpability” on behalf of plaintiffs for their failure to notify our client and provide it with an opportunity to inspect the truck. The court acknowledged that a duty to preserve evidence applied even though the truck was not “directly” within plaintiff’s custody or control. After considering all the factors, including less drastic sanctions, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon agreed with George and Dmitriy that dismissal was warranted, given the prejudice to our client and its inability to inspect the truck that plaintiffs claimed was defective.

Brian Del Gatto (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) and a Madison, New Jersey, team comprising partner Andrew Heck, of counsel Elyse Tormey, and associate Mellis Bakir, defended a wrongful death case in which the bus driver closed the front door on the decedent’s arm and drove away, causing the decedent to fall and be run over. He died several days later in the hospital, allegedly as a result of his injuries. The plaintiff sued our Canadian client, the largest municipal bus manufacturer in North America and the successor in interest to the legacy manufacturer of the bus, claiming product liability based on the allegation that the accident was a result of the door's defective design. After setting the tone early with extensive pre-answer motion practice, extensive discovery followed. Brian and the team moved for summary judgment after the discovery deadline lapsed, prior to the setting of any trial date, based on a number of grounds, including that expert testimony was necessary but lacking, and that expert opinion, even if it had been provided, would fatally lack sufficient factual support. The team strategically filed a summary judgment motion prior to its due date, so that it would be pending at the time another hearing would be conducted, at which they suspected efforts may be made to blow out discovery deadlines. When that suspicion proved accurate, the team leveraged the prejudice that would arise from extending discovery after we showed our hand in filing our motion into a prohibition on new discovery being admissible with respect to the client. Lacking the ability to use new discovery to right the ship and faced with an unassailable motion, all adversaries permitted that motion to proceed unopposed, and summary judgment was entered on the client's behalf. This aggressive strategy saved the client – which had a high self-insured exposure – significant defense costs for trial, as well as the always possible, albeit remote, adverse shock verdict.

Russell M. Pfeifer (Partner-Miami, FL) and Emma Nunn (Associate-Miami, FL) obtained final summary judgment in favor of a product manufacturer in a slip-and-fall lawsuit filed by the largest personal injury firm in Florida. After nearly one year of litigation between the plaintiff and a large retail establishment, the retailer forced the plaintiff into amending her complaint, adding our client to the suit. The allegations, mainly advanced by the retailer, were that the water in which the plaintiff slipped and fell most likely came from our machine; and further, the subject machine had a long history of leaking water. Russell and Emma vigorously defended these claims and ultimately made the plaintiff’s case against the retailer since by their own admission, if the subject machine had issues, it should have been their responsibility to take it out of service and have it repaired. Russell and Emma proved that our client had no knowledge of any defect in the subject machine and that the retailer had in place a system to call for maintenance through a portal. The service records did not support any claim that the machine had issues when the accident occurred and ultimately neither the plaintiff nor the retailer adduced any evidence to support a claim of product liability. Following an unsuccessful mediation, the retailer followed up several times pleading to contribute toward a global settlement and to accept its tender of defense and indemnity. Russell and Emma refused to do so and instead sought summary judgment, which was granted. 

​Russell M. Pfeifer (Partner- Miami) and Emma Nunn (Associate- Miami) secured a dismissal with prejudice in Brevard County Circuit Court for Wilson Elser’s client, an international manufacturer, concluding nine years of litigation in a product liability suit with seven-figure exposure. The plaintiffs, the owner of a recreational vehicle (RV) and three of his insurance companies sued our client in 2015 following an RV refrigerator fire. After one of the insurance companies moved to stay the case due to its dissolution, Russell and Emma moved to re-open the matter and substitute the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) instead of the bankrupt entity. Rather than litigate the remainder of the lawsuit, including Russell and Emma’s two Daubert motions that would effectively determine the case's outcome, the plaintiffs dismissed the lawsuit, exposing themselves to taxable costs and the recovery of attorneys’ fees under statutory proposals for settlement served years ago. 

Gregg A. Tatarka (Partner-White Plains, NY), Dirk J. Muse (Partner-Seattle), and Carinne Bannan (Associate-Seattle) prevailed on summary judgment in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, for a consumer product and appliance distributor. In this product liability subrogation matter, the plaintiff brought an action to recover costs paid to its insureds for damage to their home when the washing machine leaked. The insureds argued the manufacturer was liable for a manufacturing defect and claimed $400,000 in damages. 

Gregg, Dirk, and Carinne filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of repose barred a claim against our appliance distributor client related to the 15-year-old machine and that there was no evidence of a manufacturing defect. The court concurred that there was no evidence of any manufacturing defect and granted Wilson Elser’s motion, the decision bolstered by the plaintiff's expert's opinion that a common industry phenomenon caused the leak.   
 

Alan Fiedel (Partner-Miami, FL), Gregg Tatarka (Partner-White Plains, NY) and Mal Helgadottir (Associate-White Plains, NY) secured a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in a product liability case on behalf of a U.S. distributor of a foreign manufacturer. The plaintiff contended that a defective clothes dryer caused a fire at a residential property resulting in damages exceeding $350,000. The plaintiff initiated suit in Florida state court whereupon it was removed to federal court. Despite our expert’s multiple inspections of the product and consideration of other possible sources of fire ignition, the plaintiff continued to assert blame against our client. From the start, Alan and Gregg advised the plaintiff that his client did not have a case, that his experts performed a flawed analysis and that the dryer did not cause the fire. Ultimately, counsel failed to comply with a court-imposed deadline to disclose expert reports and tried to file a unilateral motion to extend submitting his reports. The Wilson Elser team vigorously opposed the motion, calling it gamesmanship because the parties agreed on simultaneous disclosure and our client and co-defendant produced our expert reports timely on the date ordered. Instead of responding to an order to show cause as to why counsel did not timely disclose experts, the plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice less than 24 hours prior to a court-mandated mediation. Our client did not pay any settlement amount.  

Seattle partners Rachel Tallon Reynolds and Erin Fraser obtained summary judgment in the Multnomah County Circuit Court on behalf of a Texas-based solvent manufacturer. The plaintiff alleged he contracted multiple myeloma as a result of exposure to benzene from our client’s products, and sought $10 million in damages. At the outset of the litigation, the Rachel and Erin challenged personal jurisdiction in Oregon State Court, but the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging necessary jurisdictional facts. As discovery progressed, the plaintiff was unable to establish personal jurisdiction. We sought summary judgment, asserting that the Texas-based client’s contacts with Oregon were random and fortuitous and not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The court found that the plaintiff submitted insufficient evidence to establish that the manufacturer purposefully availed itself of the laws of Oregon, and granted summary judgment less than three weeks before trial was scheduled to begin.

The Seattle and Oregon team of Patrick Lynch, Laura Dadowski, Chuqiao Wang and Jami Johnson supported trial preparation.
 

Michael S. Rothrock (Of Counsel-Raleigh, NC) and Peter Clements (Associate-Charlotte, NC) obtained summary judgment in North Carolina Superior Court for a national distributor of smoking and vaping products and accessories. In this product liability case, the plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained after a lithium-ion battery experienced a thermal runaway in his pocket, causing second-degree burns and scarring. The plaintiff contends that the distributor and retailer of the batteries are liable because they knew or should have known that the batteries were inappropriate for use in vaping devices and alleges that he was not warned of the dangers associated with them. There was a factual dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiff was warned, but the plaintiff maintained that if he was warned, the warning was insufficient. Mike and Peter argued that the plaintiff's claims lack merit because the plaintiff failed to prove that our client distributed the battery; no evidence was presented establishing the claimed injury was caused by an act or omission of the client; any failure to warn was not a proximate cause of the injury; and the sealed container defense bars the plaintiff's claims. The court concurred, granting Mike and Peter’s motion for summary judgment just before trial and dismissing the case. 

Rebecca Young (Partner-Birmingham, AL) won summary judgment for a product manufacturer in a case involving an allegedly defective trailer that caused the plaintiff company significant consequential damages including loss of business, substantial storage and towing costs, and loss of use. The plaintiff made claims under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer Liability Doctrine (AEMLD) as well as claims for negligence, wantonness and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and made a demand for nearly $1 million to resolve the claims. Rebecca filed for summary judgment and argued that the tort claims, implied warranty claim, business injury damages and all other consequential damages were barred by the economic loss rule and limited remedies in the express warranty. The U.S District Court for the Northern District of Alabama agreed with these arguments and granted summary judgment disposing of those claims and damages.

Tommy Spitaletto (Partner-Dallas, TX) represented an English company that provided testing services for nutritional supplements in the United States. The client was sued by a plaintiff who had filed at least 10 cases and appeals in different state and federal courts, together with Major League Baseball, most of the MLB teams, various testing laboratories and others. In his 100-page complaint, the plaintiff claimed to have created a nutritional supplement containing an insulin-growth factor, and sued our client regarding advertising for testing of banned substances – asserting fraud, violations of the Lanham Act for false advertising, RICO violations, unjust enrichment and mental anguish. After extensive briefing with a joint defense group, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Based on multiple prior lawsuits against other defendants, the court also deemed the plaintiff a “vexatious” litigant, and enjoined him from filing any new pleadings or cases in the Southern District of Texas unless he obtains advance permission from the Chief Judge. 

John Loringer (Partner-Milwaukee, WI), Melissa Murphy-Petros (Of Counsel-Chicago, IL) and Brian Del Gatto (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) successfully defended the dismissal of a Canadian manufacturer of farm equipment before the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The plaintiff, a Minnesota dairy farmer, alleged that our client's product was the cause of a decrease in milk production over numerous years. The settlement demand throughout discovery was in excess of $3 million for the loss of production and untimely death of some of the cows. After having the case dismissed at the trial court by demonstrating the lack of foundational reliability with the plaintiff's expert witness theories regarding causation, the plaintiff appealed and the appellate court issued an order affirming dismissal by the trial court and securing a complete victory for the client. The result here solidifies appropriate rules of disclosure for expert opinions.

Curt Schlom (Partner-Chicago, IL), Matthew Lee (Partner-DC Metro) and Haley Mathis (Associate-McLean, VA) prevailed on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on behalf of the firm’s client, a corporation having its principal place of business in the Republic of China (Taiwan). The plaintiff purchased an e-bike online and was injured while riding when the seat assembly dislodged. The plaintiff alleged that the assembly was defective in design and/or manufacture and, further, that the firm’s client designed and manufactured the product assembly. The team argued that the plaintiff could not present facts establishing that the firm’s client “purposefully availed” itself of the privilege of doing business in Virginia such that it was subject to jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. The team further argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 131 S. Ct. 2780, 180 L. Ed. 2d 765 (2011) made clear that simply placing a product into the “stream of commerce” was not sufficient to satisfy minimum contacts, even if a defendant could have predicted that the product would arrive in the forum jurisdiction. The trial court agreed with the team’s argument and dismissed the client from the lawsuit, which remains pending against the retailer of the e-bike in question.

Gregg Tatarka (Partner-White Plains, NY), Kristi Buchholz Helfrick (Of Counsel-Philadelphia), Angela Heim (Of Counsel-Philadelphia) and Mal Helgadottir (Associate-White Plains, NY) obtained summary judgment in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania for Wilson Elser’s client, a consumer product and appliance distributor. The plaintiff in this subrogation recovery lawsuit, stemming from a residential house fire, alleges the fire was caused by a defective clothes dryer or the installation of the dryer. Gregg, Kristi, Angela, and Mal argued that the plaintiff presented no evidence establishing that our client placed the dryer into the marketplace in a defective condition or that our client failed to adequately warn of the hazards associated with the installation and use of the dryer. The court granted summary judgment in favor of our client on strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty and breach of contract causes of action.

Gregg Tatarka (Partner-White Plains, NY) and Mark Vespole (Partner-Madison, NJ), assisted by Madison, NJ associates Matthew Iammatteo and Mellis Bakir, obtained summary judgment in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, for Wilson Elser's client, a manufacturer and distributor of home appliances. The plaintiff is a 19-year-old woman suffering the double amputation of her legs after being struck by a tractor-trailer swerving onto the shoulder while trying to avoid the plaintiff's disabled vehicle left in the roadway. The co-defendant's driver operated the tractor-trailer; the co-defendant is a trucking company contracted by our client for appliance delivery services.
 
The plaintiff alleges our client was negligent in hiring and retaining the trucking company. Gregg argued the client owed no duty to the plaintiff and performed a reasonable investigation into the company, confirming it was insured, registered, authorized to operate as a motor carrier and had a "Satisfactory" rating with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. He further argued that a product shipper is not held to the same duty as a motor carrier broker and that the plaintiff's argument ostensibly turns any product shipper into a guarantor for any motor carrier's negligence.
 
The court granted Wilson Elser's motion for summary judgment, holding that the carrier was competent to perform the task for which it was retained and concurring that our client performed reasonable due diligence in selecting and retaining the motor carrier. The case was dismissed with prejudice, denying the plaintiff's $15 million demand to our client.
 

Taylor Allin (Of Counsel-Phoenix, AZ) and Blake Bracht (Associate-Phoenix, AZ) obtained a full dismissal of a product liability case against the firm’s specialty vehicle customization client. The plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of warranty against the client for allegedly improperly performing a custom engine upgrade to the plaintiff's specialty vehicle. The client is based in California and did all of the work in California, while the plaintiff is based in Arizona. Taylor and Blake strategically removed the case from state court to federal court and then filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction over the client in Arizona. The plaintiff contended there was personal jurisdiction because he resided in Arizona, received marketing emails from the client while in Arizona, and the vehicle was transported to and from Arizona. The judge agreed with Taylor and Blake’s arguments that this was insufficient for jurisdiction because the plaintiff initiated the contact and requested the marketing emails, while a third party controlled the marketing emails and the client did not perform the transportation of the vehicle. The court granted the motion and denied plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery.

Suna Lee (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) was granted a Motion to Dismiss this case in its entirety for lack of personal jurisdiction without the need for jurisdictional discovery following extensive briefing and oral argument in Union County Superior Court. Suna represented a valve manufacturer. The third-party plaintiff, a plumbing company that installed a toilet with a valve alleged to have caused extensive property damage in a commercial building located in New Jersey, filed a Third-Party Complaint against our client, who supplied the valve, alleging the valve was defective. Our client, incorporated under the laws of Delaware and headquartered in Illinois, sold the valve to the toilet manufacturer – a Wisconsin company – and shipped it to its warehouse in Texas.  Accordingly, in lieu of an Answer, Suna moved for dismissal of all claims based on our client’s lack of minimum contacts. The court agreed with Suna that recent Supreme Court jurisprudence limited general jurisdiction and rejected the stream of commerce theory argued by the plaintiff’s counsel and further agreed that jurisdictional discovery was not warranted given the absence of a prima facie case of jurisdiction. The alleged property damage to the commercial building totaled approximately $500,000 and the action involved numerous defendants engaging in extensive litigation and motion practice.

Karen L. Bashor (Partner-Las Vegas) , I-Che Lai (Associate-Las Vegas) and Gregg Tatarka (Partner-White Plains) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in United States District Court, District of Nevada on behalf of a global electronics company where the Plaintiff alleged that a cell phone exploded in his hand, causing burns and requiring surgery. Plaintiff filed suit and demanded millions, asserting causes of action for strict products liability, negligence and breach of an implied warranty claim. Karen aggressively and extensively deposed both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s expert in this matter. I-Che prepared a detailed brief with additional affidavits in support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with the assistance of Gregg. Based on the deposition testimony of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s experts, and filed briefs, the Court granted Defendant’s motion. In summary, the Court agreed that Plaintiff’s case hinged on their expert. While the Court found the expert qualified given his extensive experience as an engineer, the Court deemed his opinions unreliable, particularly his failure to explain the methodology he employed to determine the manufacturing defect existed when the phone left Defendant’s possession, including a failure to rule out tampering. The Court further determined that Plaintiff’s negligence claim suffered from the same deficiency as, and was subsumed by, his strict product liability claim. Moreover, the Court noted Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that horizontal privity exists between him and defendant. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty claim as well.

Michael Lowry (Partner-Las Vegas) and Kevin Brown (Of Counsel-Las Vegas) won a motion to dismiss in Second Judicial District Court in Reno, having been retained by a local trucking company whose vehicle was involved in a tip-over accident with another commercial truck. Upon filing the suit, Plaintiff completed all required preliminary procedures with one critical exception: the timely opening of discovery. This failure to act, despite reminders from Brown seeking the opening of discovery, resulted in the district court granting a motion to dismiss on behalf of the defendant after finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify the delay.

Russ Vignali (Partner-White Plains) and Matthew Vaccaro (Associate-New York) achieved a unanimous defense verdict in the Eastern District of New York following a four-day trial. The plaintiff alleged that he lost a non-dominant index finger and suffered severe lacerations to his thumb due to a defect in a benchtop table saw manufactured by the firm’s client. Russ and Matt argued that the plaintiff was not injured during a kickback by the saw, but was instead injured by contacting the unguarded saw blade. In his closing, Russ emphasized that the plaintiff had removed the blade guard before the accident and had admitted that, after the accident, one-half of the workpiece remained on the saw’s table and one-half was still in his hand, calling into question the veracity of the plaintiff’s story about the kickback and thrown workpiece. The jury returned its verdict in less than two hours. Demand before trial was $9 million.