Rhee-Karn v. Lask
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:15-cv-09946
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rhee-Karn v. Lask, Judge Lehrburger denied reconsideration, granted clarification in part, and denied certification for an immediate appeal.
The plaintiff and defendant in Rhee-Karn v. Lask, particularly their presentation of damages and evidence at trial.
What happened
Rhee-Karn v. Lask concerns the damages that may be considered at trial in connection with work performed for two federal cases. The court had previously limited the trial issue to damages.
The plaintiff asked the court to reconsider its earlier ruling about an alleged damages offset and to clarify its decision on the parties’ trial-evidence motions. She also asked the court to certify a question for an immediate appeal.
Judge Lehrburger denied reconsideration, granted the clarification request in part, and denied the request to certify an immediate appeal. The court directed the parties to read its earlier decisions together and said the trial may consider amounts paid for malpractice-related work and whether that work was used in the other federal case.
The detailed version
- Rhee-Karn v. Lask · No. 1:15-cv-09946
- Robert Lehrburger
- July 14, 2023
Background
This order addresses the plaintiff’s motion at Docket 389. The motion sought reconsideration of the court’s June 28, 2023 decision and order concerning “offset” and clarification of the court’s May 24, 2023 decision and order resolving the parties’ motions in limine, which are motions about what evidence may be presented at trial.
The court explained that its earlier decisions should be read together and in chronological order. It had not approved an “offset” theory. Instead, it limited the trial issue to damages. Those damages may take account of what the plaintiff actually paid the defendant for work performed in the First Federal Action, for which the court stated there was malpractice, and the extent to which that work, if any, was used in the Second Federal Action, for which the court stated there was no malpractice.
Rulings
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It stated that the plaintiff’s motion essentially sought to revive issues resolved at summary judgment and that she had not identified any fact or controlling legal authority that the court overlooked when determining the permissible scope of damages for trial.
The court granted the motion for clarification in part. It clarified that the two earlier decisions must be read together and that the damages issue at trial is limited as described above.
The court also denied the plaintiff’s alternative request to certify an issue for interlocutory appeal. Such certification requires the district court to find both a controlling legal question on which there is substantial disagreement and that an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation. The court concluded that the damages-related issue did not meet that standard. It requested that the Clerk of Court terminate the motion at Docket 389.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.