“On this record, a reasonable jury could conclude that Marks was shot when he neither posed a threat to the officers or the public, nor was he fleeing or ignoring an officer’s commands. On the other hand, a jury might agree with Officer Bauer’s assessment of the situation and find his use of force was […]

“There are way too many words in this record trying to describe something that’s not nearly as complicated as the defendants are trying to make it seem. That is obfuscating to me,” a Cook County judge said.       

“Chandler’s conduct was not so reprehensible that it warrants a punitive damages award that is more than eight times the amount previously awarded in excessive force/wrongful death cases in this circuit,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah said.       

“Plaintiff has failed to show that defendant would have been subject to personal jurisdiction in California, and has therefore failed to show that this exact case could have been brought as a matter of right in the Northern District of California,” the court said.       

The lower court determined that reputational damages and chilling effect damages didn’t constitute special damages under Illinois law, and Mark Gregaros’ decision not to represent Jussie Smollett as lead counsel in separate litigation was a business decision that didn’t constitute special injury.       

“The court concludes that the Graham complaint does not fall within the ‘very limited circumstances’ that would establish fraudulent joinder. Philips did not meet its heavy burden to show, as a matter of fact or law, that the claims against Gould’s are not colorable,” Senior U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the Western District

“Plaintiffs’ own testimony and purchasing records confirm that their purchases were not and could not have been influenced by either the front label protein statement or the %DV—and certainly never both in combination,” the complaint said.       

“The repeated and consistent nature of Malloy’s sworn falsehoods and misrepresentations during discovery threatened the integrity of this litigation particularly and the judicial process generally,” the judge said.       

“No longer would the $250,000 per-person limit be a barrier to recovery. It is, after all, per person, allowing each spouse to recover for their own damages subject to payments by the tortfeasor’s insurer and the $500,000 per-occurrence limit. It would not matter that Beverly suffered no ‘bodily injury’ herself,” the court said.       

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld partner David Quigley is skeptical that the strategy will gain traction. “They may actually have some good facts; they just don’t have a legal framework to apply those facts, he said.