Blu-J, Inc. v. Kemper C.P.A. Group

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an accountant’s report prepared for the purpose of compromise negotiations was properly excluded
• explaining that the “test for whether statements fall under [an earlier but similar version of Rule 408] is whether the statements or conduct were intended to be part of the negotiations toward compromise” (quotations omitted)
• applying the Ramada test to hold an independent evaluation was inadmissible under the rule because it was “intended to be 21 part of negotiations toward compromise,” even though one party contended there “was no offer on the table”
• independent evaluation prepared for purpose of exploring settlement “falls squarely within the Ramada Dev. Co. holding and the proscription of rule 408”
• plaintiff must establish that \the intent and purpose of the contracting parties was to confer a direct and substantial benefit upon the third party\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).