Michael Hoenig

June 12, 2012 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that the danger to fair trials posed by Internet-surfing jurors is exacerbated by lawyers "advertising" of their prowess or success on websites, by publishing case-specific information on firm sites or blogs or other Internet outlets, by skillfully weaving inaccurate, misleading or self-serving messages and "depositing" them where straying jurors can "find" them.

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

March 11, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Herzfeld & Rubin member Michael Hoenig reviews a California case in which expert testimony was held too speculative to be admissible after the expert said the small company plaintiff, based on its "innovation," could be compared to multinational companies that were the dominant market leaders in the dental implant industry for computation of lost profits.

By Michael Hoenig

11 minute read

September 09, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Michael Hoenig of Herzfeld & Rubin, finds that electronic discovery continues to be an area of turmoil, and discusses the 'Sekisui' decision as being the latest wake-up call that rules governing electronic discovery are to be taken seriously.

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

June 17, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that on June 10, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-awaited decision in 'Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter,' affirming lower court rulings that upheld an arbitrator's decision to allow class arbitration proceedings rather than only an individual arbitration.

By Michael Hoenig

11 minute read

December 12, 2012 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that some lawyers skillfully convert ordinary breach of warranty or Lemon Law or consumer fraud act claims into putative class actions of mega-proportions by naming one or two plaintiffs as "representatives" of a mass of faceless, nameless purchasers of the same or similar products.

By 
Michael 
Hoenig

12 minute read

July 08, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Herzfeld & Rubin member Michael Hoenig reviews the latest decisions on contractual waivers of class arbitration and a Second Circuit holding in a suit over a published scientific paper alleged by plaintiff to contain falsehoods and distortions.

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

February 11, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that the Supreme Court will hear an appeal of a February 2012 holding that an arbitration and class action waiver provision was unenforceable where the action was based upon federal antitrust statutes and the evidence showed that the prohibitive costs of individually proceeding in arbitration, as a practical matter, would not give the plaintiffs an opportunity to "vindicate their statutory rights."

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

January 09, 2012 | New York Law Journal

In his Products Liability column, Herzfeld & Rubin member Michael Hoenig writes: The hodgepodge, hindsight approach of spotty case law holding that this or that warning in this or that scenario was sufficient or deficient does not supply the certainty that warnings manufacturers truly need.

By Michael Hoenig

9 minute read

November 14, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Products Liability column, Herzfeld & Rubin member Michael Hoenig writes: The Court of Appeals "no-preemption" decision may have opened up vistas of "no-seatbelt" litigation for larger buses that traditionally were not required to have passenger restraints. On the other hand, the Court's piercing analysis of the insufficiency of the expert's proofs sends a message that conclusory expert testimony of a "safer" design should be rejected, whether in a summary judgment setting or a trial.

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

October 19, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Products Liability column, Michael Hoenig of Herzfeld & Rubin discusses the "any exposure" theory of causation, which contends that asbestos disease is a cumulative dose-response process, and the court decisions that have rejected, as one court called it, the "fiction" that would subject defendants to full joint-and-several liability for injuries and fatalities in the absence of reasonably developed scientific reasoning about substantial factor causation.

By Michael Hoenig

11 minute read