Representative Cases for Trial Advocacy
Since our firm began in 1995, we have successfully tried hundreds of cases to verdict in a multitude of federal and state courts around the country. LCBF is mindful of the expense of litigation and the need to assess and resolve cases as efficiently as possible, but we are always prepared to try cases that need to be tried to verdict, rather than ask clients to enter into generous settlements on the eve of trial. Our experience also allows us to assign the right trial attorney to each case, rather than relying on an army of attorneys.
Our clients benefit from our reputation as a trial-skilled firm that will not hesitate to try a case to verdict. Our reputation often encourages opposing counsel to realistically appraise their claims at an earlier stage, and allows us to achieve favorable settlements for our clients before trial is imminent.
From the first day a matter is assigned, we develop a strategy aimed at obtaining a resolution that best serves our client’s interests. By conducting early evaluation of the merits of pretrial substantive motions, including summary judgment and in limine motions under Daubert and Frye, we can present efficient and responsible options to clients. In addition, our trial lawyers are adept at determining when and how to use different technologies in presenting cases to juries, judges, arbitrators, and mediators.
We typically handle cases from the very onset of the judicial process and we are also often engaged even earlier, when there is an incident likely to give rise to a claim. We are also asked by clients, rather frequently, to assume responsibility for trying cases that have been prepared for trial by other firms. In every one of these situations, our attorneys stand ready to hit the ground running to achieve the best possible outcome for our clients.
Sadek v. Greyhound, No. 108589/07 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2011) (As a result of a successful Frye hearing during trial, plaintiff precluded from proceeding to the jury with respect to claims he suffered a stroke as a result of bus accident; subsequently, plaintiff, who had demanded $10 million to settle case, dismissed his orthopedic claims, including claim that he required back surgery, to pursue appeal)
Stowe v. Amtrak, 2011 WL 2516939 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (denying plaintiff’s post-trial motions following a defense verdict from a jury in an FELA case tried in Brooklyn, where plaintiff claimed multiple injuries to her neck, back, chest and left shoulder, requiring surgery, as well as PTSD, and depression)
Edmonson v. 141 Realty LLC, No. 36638/05 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2010) (defense verdict in lead paint case involving an infant who claimed brain injury and academic compromise in consequence of a blood lead level (“BLL”) of 22 ug/dL at age 5 and BLLs between 5 – 8 ug/dL beginning at age 2; unanimous jury finding that no hazardous lead-based paint conditions present)
Vogel v. Laidlaw, No. BER-L-9126-06 (N.J. Super. Ct. Bergen Co. 2010) (defense verdict for a student transportation company and two of its employees where plaintiff, a severely autistic minor, was allegedly physically and verbally abused by bus driver and bus aide, resulting in severe PTSD and worsening of his autism)
Montgomery v. Cheshire Harding, 2009 WL 332026 (Vt. Supr. 2009) (upholding defense verdict in case firm tried where the plaintiff was run over by a forklift and suffered catastrophic injuries, including the loss of his right leg at the hip)
Lennon v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, No. 102753/05 (Sup. Ct. N. Y. Co. 2010) (jury returned a net verdict of $226,000, where plaintiff had demanded $2 million for FELA claim that, while walking between cars of a moving train, her arm became trapped in a door, causing reflex sympathetic dystrophy that prevented her from returning to work and required implantation of a spinal cord stimulator and opiates for pain alleviation)
Rivera v. NYCHA, No. 6134/06 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (defense verdict in a lead paint claim involving a child with a reported blood lead level (“BLL”) of 25 ug/dL; jury found that, although defendant was negligent in allowing hazardous lead paint conditions to exist at the subject apartment, defendant’s negligence was not the cause of any claimed damages)
Hepburn v. LIRR, No. 04-cv-4194 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (defense verdict for the railroad client in a FELA suit where a former conductor alleged head, neck and throat cancer from second-hand tobacco smoke exposure ("ETS") while he was a conductor on "smoking trains")
Scotto v. Amtrak, No. 05-cv-4757 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (jury verdict of only $370,000 where defendant did not contest liability in train derailment causing significant cervical and lumbar herniations and plaintiff demanded $12 million in closing)
Schuman v. Amtrak, No. 06-cv-14290 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (jury verdict of only $673,000 where passenger involved in a train collision suffered severe back injuries, including multiple herniations that required surgery, originally sought $15 million in economic damages, and maintained a $5 million demand at trial)
Feld v. Amtrak, No. 2:07-cv-2813 (E.D.Pa. 2008) (jury awarded plaintiff $65,000 in admitted liability derailment case, where plaintiff conductor, seated in the locomotive when it struck an unmanned piece of railroad equipment at approximately 35 mph, suffered lumbar injuries, resulting in bilateral L3, L4, L5 and S1 radiofrequency ablation (rhizotomy) of the medial branch, claimed approximately $1 million in wage losses, and demanded $1.8 million before trial)
Roberts v. National R.R.Pass. Corp., 2007 WL 3230736 (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2007) (rejecting plaintiff estate's appeal for a new trial and upholding the jury's verdict of only $1.425 million in wrongful death action)
Hoyte v. Amtrak, 2006 WL 2053383 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (jury verdict of only $24,000 where defendant did not contest liability in a train collision and plaintiff, a computer programmer earning over $100,000 per year prior to the accident, contended that he could not return to work due to multiple disc herniations and traumatic brain injury and asked the jury for several million dollars)
McDougall v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 2005 WL 713339 (E.D.Pa. 2005) (dismissal, following bench trial, of civil rights claims by defense attorney against police department for unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution and excessive use of force after the criminal case against him was dismissed)
Taylor v. Cornell Healthcare Group, No. ESX-L-4672-02 (N.J. Super. Ct. Essex Co. 2004) (Defense verdict for medical equipment company accused of negligence, which allegedly caused multiple leg fractures requiring surgery; pre-trial demand was $750,000)
Drobny v. Amtrak, No. 01-cv-338 (JWB) (D.N.J. 2004) (jury split liability 50/50 and awarded signalman, alleging RSD with ulnar release surgery as the result of a double crush injury to his wrist and elbow in a work-related incident, only $2,500 gross/$1,250 net, despite his economist having boarded $1 million)
Diaz v. Amtrak, No. 002802- 2001 (Ct. of Common Pleas Philadelphia, PA 2003) (defense verdict in FELA suit, where plaintiff had demanded $750,000 for injuries sustained while lifting a 16-foot timber, with allegedly improper equipment and insufficient manpower, requiring lumbar decompression and bilateral spinal fusion)
Jacob v. Amtrak, No. 99-cv-5457 (WGB) (D.N.J. 2002) (defense verdict; jury found that, despite defendant’s concession of liability, its negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s herniated discs in his lumbar spine, where plaintiff had demanded $1 million before trial and his economist boarded over $1 million)
In Stowe v. National Railroad Corp., 2012 WL 4360436 (2d Cir. 2012), affirming 793 F. Supp. 2d 549 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), the Second Circuit rejected all of the plaintiff's arguments on appeal and upheld a zero damages verdict after LCBF's client had conceded negligence. Among other things, the plaintiff had argued that the Supreme Court's Decision in CSX Transp. Inc. v. McBride, 131 S. Ct. 2630 (2011) required a new trial because the FELA jury charge on causation omitted the phrase "no matter how small. "The plaintiff asserted this phrase was mandatory after McBride because the charge approved in McBride had contained that language. Agreeing with the LCBF position on appeal, the Second Circuit ruled that because the jury charge given by the trial court tracked the language of the statute, the charge was not erroneous. The LCBF team was headed by Gerry Ford and Mark Landman