FOLLOW US

A seismic legal clash has erupted in the wake of a Connecticut federal jury's million-dollar judgment in favor of McCarter & English LLP, as the prestigious law firm vigorously contests any grounds for a new trial in the riveting contract dispute against dietary supplement company Jarrow Formula Inc.

A "Blunderbuss" Retrial Bid Rejected

McCarter & English staunchly rebuffed Jarrow Formula Inc.'s audacious, 40-page retrial motion, filed on September 19, dubbing it a "blunderbuss" that lacks any compelling rationale for revisiting the verdict. The firm contends that the issues raised in this motion have already been exhaustively considered, and the court should endorse the jury's resolute judgment.

Multi-Million Dollar Award Demanded

In the blistering opposition filed on Tuesday, McCarter insists the court must uphold the jury's ruling, which found in their favor on breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. They are adamant that the law firm deserves nothing short of the $6.5 million they seek, covering legal fees, damages, and accrued interest from an underlying lawsuit that McCarter & English expertly handled on behalf of Jarrow.

McCarter & English : Origin of the Feud

This tempestuous legal saga began back in 2019 when McCarter & English sued Jarrow for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The suit stemmed from allegations that Jarrow failed to settle five invoices for legal services associated with an underlying Kentucky case. In response, Jarrow retaliated, accusing McCarter & English of raising fees without proper notification, thereby fanning the flames of this legal dispute.

McCarter & English : Duelling Claims

McCarter  vigorously contends that they had indeed notified Jarrow and justified the fee increase after years of extending discounts for their legal services. Mark D. Giarratana, a partner at M&E, testified that Jarrow's owner, Jarrow Rogovin, had voiced approval of the rate hike.

McCarter & English : Jury Verdict

July witnessed a dramatic courtroom showdown that ended with a Connecticut jury favoring McCarter & English, who were awarded $1,057,173.93 in compensatory damages. This judgment was bolstered by a $980,451.44 summary judgment McCarter & English secured in 2021. The jury specified that prejudgment interest and punitive damages were to be bestowed.

A Battle of Numbers

Following this verdict, M&E launched an audacious bid for an additional $3.6 million in punitive damages, combined with nearly $850,000 in prejudgment interest, accumulating at a breathtaking rate of $558.25 each day. Jarrow balked at this colossal sum, denouncing the punitive damages as "wholly unreasonable and contrary to well-founded legal principles."

A "Windfall" Refused

Undeterred by the looming threat of punitive damages, Jarrow proposed a considerably more modest $859,000 in damages, arguing that they had "overpaid" McCarter & English by a significant $931,086.68. They also sought a new trial and a judgment as a matter of law, insisting that "no reasonable jury could find any basis to award punitive damages on McCarter's claim for breach of contract."

McCarter & English's Vigorous Response

In a fiery countermove, McCarter & English submitted a 43-page retort on Tuesday, underlining the ample evidence that supported the jury's determination that Jarrow had "willfully and maliciously breached the contract." They asserted that Jarrow's request for a new trial "conveniently omits much of the evidence that supports the jury's finding."

Interest Calculation Alteration

In a dramatic twist, McCarter & English announced on Wednesday their willingness to amend the interest calculation due to the release of $1.85 million in escrow funds on September 29. By crediting this deposit to the more than $2 million in compensatory damages accrued in 2021 and 2023, they argued that per diem interest accrual had plummeted to just $51.40, a mere fraction of the initial $558.25 per day.