Court – United States District Court for the Southern District of New YorkJurisdiction – FederalDaubert Factor Involved – QualificationCase Stage – Pre-TrialRuling Type – Daubert Ruling/ Class CertificationCase Name – Royal Park Invs. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’nCitation – 324 F. Supp. 3d 387
This case involves a dispute between an investor, Royal Park, and a trustee, U.S. Bank, wherein Royal Park alleged that U.S. Bank failed to perform its duties under the governing agreements and that these failures led to an “unprecedented numbers of defaults, delinquencies, foreclosures, liquidations, and losses” that resulted in billions of dollars of losses for investors.
Royal Park sought to certify as a class all persons and entities who held certificates in the covered trusts and who suffered damages as a result of U.S. Bank’s alleged conduct. In support of the certification motion, Royal Park submitted the testimony of an expert economist. U.S. Bank moved to exclude the economics expert’s testimony.
The Economics Expert
The expert specialized in quantitative valuation, econometrics, statistics, securities analysis, antitrust, financial markets, and intellectual property. He provided a report with background information about the residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) market and securitization process. He also offered opinions about the relationship between the certificates in the different covered trusts, the impact of U.S. Bank’s alleged breach on such certificates, the size of the class, and that damages were calculable on a class-wide basis.
U.S. Bank argued that the report’s proposed damages calculation methodology was unreliable because it did not address whether the alleged breaches caused any losses. It was also argued that the report’s methodology was irrelevant because it aggravated damages on a certificate basis, rather than class member basis.
Held
The district court found the expert to be adequately qualified to testify as an economic expert witness. It also noted that the issues of damages and causation did not require determination at the stage of class certification. Hence, the court need not rule on the admissibility of such opinions from the expert. As for the rest of the report, the court found no flaws and decided to admit it for the purpose of class certification.
About the author
Zach Barreto
Zach Barreto is a distinguished professional in the legal industry, currently serving as the Senior Vice President of Research at the Expert Institute. With a deep understanding of a broad range of legal practice areas, Zach's expertise encompasses personal injury, medical malpractice, mass torts, defective products, and many other sectors. His skills are particularly evident in handling complex litigation matters, including high-profile cases like the Opioids litigation, NFL Concussion Litigation, California Wildfires, 3M earplugs, Elmiron, Transvaginal Mesh, NFL Concussion Litigation, Roundup, Camp Lejeune, Hernia Mesh, IVC filters, Paraquat, Paragard, Talcum Powder, Zantac, and many others.
Under his leadership, the Expert Institute’s research team has expanded impressively from a single member to a robust team of 100 professionals over the last decade. This growth reflects his ability to navigate the intricate and demanding landscape of legal research and expert recruitment effectively. Zach has been instrumental in working on nationally significant litigation matters, including cases involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, toxic chemical exposure, and wrongful death, among others.
At the Expert Institute, Zach is responsible for managing all aspects of the research department and developing strategic institutional relationships. He plays a key role in equipping attorneys for success through expert consulting, case management, strategic research, and expert due diligence provided by the Institute’s cloud-based legal services platform, Expert iQ.
Educationally, Zach holds a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and European History from Vanderbilt University.
