The court has scheduled a hearing in chambers on July 9. Too bad the public is being excluded, I would like to hear the arguments, even if I think I know the probable outcome.
The subject-matter jurisdiction rule, at least as described by the defendant’s motion, seems to be meant to discourage venue shopping. From my perspective with the information available to me, some of the rulings in this case seemed to favor the Plaintiff.
From what appeared to be different standards for expert witnesses, to the suppression of the defense’s remediation plan, to ruling against a contributory negligence defense, if I were Wright Pierce I would probably feel that I wasn’t allowed to properly make my case at best. At worse I might believe that the jury may have picked up on a perceived predisposition of the court.
So it comes as no surprise to me that the first thing a new attorney on the case would do is look into the circumstances of how this case came to be heard in this particular venue, and go for a mulligan. Worth a shot.