"According to Tauriga’s current Form 10-Q, in addition to
its claimed out of pocket damages, Tauriga is also seeking
damages arising from the delisting of its shares from the OTCQB
to the Pink Sheets, loss of market capitalization, loss of
trading liquidity and loss of “substantial business
opportunities.” Tauriga asserts that at trial it intends to
seek monetary damages in excess of $4 million. (Herzog Cert.,
Ex. 6)"
"The determination of Tauriga’s claims will require an
understanding of not only sophisticated financial transactions
based on complex information and documents pertaining to
corporate finance and access to capital markets, but also
whether an insolvent company with no successful “track record”
such as Tauriga has the legal ability to assert claims of this
nature that are not inherently speculative. The nature of plaintiff’s damage claims when assessed against its operational
history makes this action far more suitable for a trial by the
Court than by a jury, which weighs against granting Plaintiff
relief from its waiver of a jury trial."
This is based on this caselaw
"The Hon. James Knoll Gardner of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania was faced with the virtually identical issue in
Reis v. Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen LLC, 2008 WL 859238 (E.D.
Pa. March 27, 2008). In denying the plaintiff’s Rule 39(b)
motion, the court held:
Contrary to plaintiffs’ contentions, this
case is not a simple or “garden variety”
negligence or breach-of-contract case.
Rather, it involves complex factual and
legal issues regarding the conduct of
defendant law firm in its representation of
multiple clients.
In addition, there are potentially complex
issues regarding damages. Plaintiffs
contend that they are owed hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of dollars for
their lost business opportunities in this
case. When the issue of damages involves
intricate evidentiary facts and will require
auditing or an accounting, the court will
face substantial difficulties, though not
insurmountable obstacles, in framing a
proper jury charge that would properly
submit the issue of damages to a jury. See
SEC v. The Infinity Group Company, 212 F.3d
at 196, citing William Goldman Theatres,
Inc. v. Kirkpatrick, 154 F.2d 66, 69 (3d
Cir. 1946).
Because this case involves complex issues of
fact and law on the issues of both liability
and damages, it is more suitable for trial
by the court than by a jury. Accordingly, I
conclude that this factor weighs against
permitting plaintiffs to file a jury demand.
At *5 (emphasis added)."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
