On remand, the dental implant company sought to introduce the testimony of a Certified Public Accountant, James Skorheim. The case was appealed and remanded, with the Court of Appeal holding that the trial court order excluding damages for lost profits was in error. In an initial trial, the Court excluded claims for lost profits on the ground that they were not foreseeable. S191550 (November 26, 2012), a small dental supply company sued a university for breach of a contract to conduct clinical trials of a newly developed and patented implant. University of Southern California, Case No. The California Supreme Court has just issued an opinion which sets clear standards for the admission of expert testimony and affirms a "gatekeeping" role for California trial courts. Plantiffs respond that California trial judges do not play the same role as federal district judges, who are directed under the Daubert standard to act as gatekeepers, weighing the evidentiary basis of expert opinions before they are admitted in Court. Defendants frequently argue that the opinions of plaintiffs' experts on issues ranging from damages to causation are speculative and lack an evidentiary foundation. For years, plaintiffs and defendants have battled over the standards for admission of expert witness opinions in California courts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |