Refiling deadline issue

Trial Notebook

By Steven P. Garmisa

Hoey & Farina

Posted August 3, 2021 11:28 AM

Figuring out the one-year deadline for refiling William Tomerlin’s product liability complaint against Arkray USA seemed simple. When he filed his first lawsuit in Madison County, the company removed the case to federal court. Before it filed an answer, he exercised his right, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), to voluntarily drop the case. The dismissal order was dated Sept. 20, 2019, and he refiled in state court on Sept. 17, 2020. Although this was beyond the two-year Illinois statute of limitation …

To Read the Full Story

Your source for legal news and information

Print & Digital Access

Stay in the know all year long with these benefits:

Delivery to your office in downtown Chicago or mailed outside our hand-delivery zone.
Unlimited access to chicagolawbulletin.com.
Access to our e-edition and mobile site.
Breaking news alerts, Morning Lineup and Afternoon Headlines.
Exclusive access to events, discounts and more.

Order now, or call 312-644-2394 or email Subscription@LawBulletinMedia.com for details.

Be in the know. These must-read insider briefings will keep you

informed of the latest legal developments in Chicago. Sign up today!

LinkedIn branding for lawyers: 5 easy, effective posting options

When I started using LinkedIn back in 2007, I knew it would become the huge success story that everyone now knows it to be today.
By Steve Fretzin
Court mulls over contract with survival clause

With no local precedent on the effect of a “survival clause” on the representations and warranties in an asset purchase agreement, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals looked to scholarly commentary and decisions from other jurisdictions when deciding whether the seller was entitled to judgment on the pleadings.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Judge offers guidance for avoiding federal ‘trap’ in med-mal case

Joining a decision from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed a judgment against two “unwary litigants” who were blindsided by “surprise hurdles” created by a combined operation of the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act, Circuit Judge Amul Thapar wrote separately “to explain how litigants can avoid these traps and preserve meritorious claims.”
By Steven P. Garmisa
Opinions shed light on how justices view shadow docket

The shadow docket has grown at the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years, especially during President Donald J. Trump’s term. In a recent decision by the court, Labrador v. Poe, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh wrote concurrences, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissent. They address issues of emergency applications in some detail.
By Daniel A. Cotter
Lawyer erred on personal representative after learning defendant was dead

Answering a question certified for immediate appeal in a case where the plaintiff didn’t know the defendant was dead when the lawsuit was filed, the Illinois Appellate Court concluded that the maneuver used by plaintiff’s attorney to rectify the problem — having his secretary appointed as “personal representative” of the decedent’s estate under Sec. 13-209(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and then naming her as defendant in an amended complaint — was the wrong move.
By Steven P. Garmisa
High court says judge erred in trying to ‘rehabilitate’ juror

Guided by the principle that the purpose of voir dire is “investigation, not persuasion” — and bolstered by scholarly commentary that included a 2023 Chicago-Kent Law Review article — the Oregon Supreme Court critiqued a judge’s efforts to “rehabilitate” a prospective juror.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Current proposal isn’t enough to stem mushrooming MDLs

Assigned a multidistrict litigation (MDL) that grew from a couple of dozen cases to nearly a thousand, and observing cases that were not properly investigated or attended to by counsel, a judge in the Middle District with Georgia expressed a famous frustration with a process that has only gotten worse in the eight years since.
By Patrick Eckler
Manufacturer claims immunity for rubber bullet injury

Claiming immunity under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act when Eduardo Santos sued for severe injuries allegedly caused by a police officer who shot him in the face with a rubber bullet, Defense Technology — the company that manufactured the “kinetic impact projectile” and KIP launcher — argued the statute’s product-liability exception didn’t apply.
By Steven P. Garmisa