Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractnegligencetrialmotionfiduciaryfiduciary dutybreach of fiduciary dutycivil procedurejury trial

damagesmotionwrit of mandamus

Related Cases

Clark v. Weisberg, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 1999 WL 543191

Facts

Vincent Clark, a former professional football player, sued his former accountant Michael A. Weisberg for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence. Clark alleged that Weisberg failed to pay his insurance premiums, leading to a denial of his disability insurance claim. After terminating their relationship, Clark demanded an accounting of his assets, which Weisberg allegedly failed to provide. Clark sought the appointment of a special master to conduct an accounting of his finances.

Clark is a former professional football player. During his career as a professional football player, Clark earned several millions of dollars. Weisberg is a certified public accountant, registered under the Illinois Public Accounting Act. Clark alleges that in or about July, 1991, Clark and Weisberg entered into a verbal agreement in which Weisberg agreed to serve as Clark's accountant, financial advisor and financial manager and Clark agreed to compensate Weisberg for such services.

Issue

Whether the court should appoint a special master to conduct an accounting of Clark's finances.

Rule

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b) states that a reference to a master is an exception and not the rule. In jury trials, a reference is only appropriate when the issues are complicated, and in nonjury trials, it is permissible only under exceptional conditions.

A reference to a master shall be the exception and not the rule. In actions to be tried by a jury, a reference shall be made only when the issues are complicated; in actions to be tried without a jury, save in matters of account and of difficult computation of damages, a reference shall be made only upon a showing that some exceptional condition requires it.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the issues in Clark's case were sufficiently complicated to warrant the appointment of a special master. It noted that while Clark cited numerous transactions and documents, the complexity did not exceed that of typical cases. The court emphasized that the number of disputed transactions was unknown and that counsel could effectively narrow the issues without a special master.

The Seventh Circuit has warned district courts that '[i]n this more than in any other circuit we must be alert to the danger of overusing special masters, for it was overuse by one of our district judges that led to the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus in LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957).' Clark's assertions were unpersuasive where the Seventh Circuit has recognized the increased cost and delay associated with the use of special masters.

Conclusion

The court denied Clark's motion for the appointment of a special master, concluding that the issues were not sufficiently complicated to justify such an appointment.

For the reasons set forth above, Clark's Motion for Appointment of a Special Master to Conduct an Accounting is DENIED.

Who won?

Michael A. Weisberg prevailed in this case as the court denied Clark's motion for the appointment of a special master. The court found that Clark did not demonstrate that the issues were complicated enough to warrant the appointment, emphasizing that the complexity of the case did not exceed that of typical actions and that the parties could work together to narrow the issues.

Weisberg denies that he engaged in any wrongdoing. According to Weisberg, Clark has only himself to blame for his current financial position.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Christian v. Eagles Landing Christian Academy, Inc., 303 Ga.App. 113, 692 S.E.2d 745, 256 Ed. Law Rep. 934, 10 FCDR 1080

Harris ex rel. Harris v. McCray, 867 So.2d 188, 186 Ed. Law Rep. 990

Doe v. TCI Cablevision of Missouri, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2002 WL 1610972, 30 Media L. Rep. 2409

University Interscholastic League v. North Dallas Chamber of Commerce Soccer Ass’n, 693 S.W.2d 513, 26 Ed. Law Rep. 881

Fotochrome, Inc. v. Copal Co., Ltd., 517 F.2d 512