A federal court in Illinois denied reconsideration of its decision to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony in connection with a motion seeking class certification. Conrad v. Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC, 2021 WL 1736887 (S.D. Ill. May 3, 2021). Employees and former employees of franchised Jimmy John’s restaurants alleged that anti-poaching provisions formerly contained in many franchise agreements constituted an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. After extensive discovery, plaintiff filed for class certification and both parties submitted expert testimony with respect to whether damages in the form of allegedly suppressed wages could be proven on a class-wide basis. Both sides sought to exclude the opposing side’s expert testimony, and in a decision summarized in Issue 263 of The Franchise Memorandum, the court excluded only the testimony of plaintiff’s expert. Plaintiff then moved for reconsideration, which the court denied.
Plaintiff failed to meet the high standard for reconsideration. Despite plaintiff’s contentions otherwise, the court found that it did not misapprehend plaintiff’s expert’s report, that new explanations and arguments proffered by plaintiff’s expert in a supplemental report were not based on newly discovered evidence, and that interests in finality were promoted by affirming the prior decision. The court therefore affirmed the exclusion of the testimony of plaintiff’s expert based on his failure to adopt a reliable method for establishing that purported damages were susceptible to proof on a class-wide basis.
Maisa Frank represents clients in a variety of litigation matters. Whether conducting pre-dispute investigations, navigating litigation, or negotiating resolutions, Maisa’s advice and strategy is vital to clients facing ...
Richard Landon is a trial and appellate attorney who advises and represents businesses resolving disputes in antitrust, distribution, and franchising, as well as shareholder disputes and other complex commercial litigation ...
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
About this Publication
The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP.
To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here.