Landmark Health Solutions LLC v. Not for Profit Hospital Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a party’s “failure to register” under a D.C. door-closing statute strips the Court of “subject matter jurisdiction” (citing Tel. & Data Sys., Inc. v. Am. Cellular Network Corp., 966 F.2d 696, 699 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
• deferring evaluation of plaintiff’s challenge to defendant’s experts in part because defendant had not yet put experts at issue
• “… the court can order supplemental pleadings that outline events that have transpired since the date of the party’s most recent pleading….”
• “Trial courts are afforded substantial latitude in deciding the procedure necessary to test the 10 sufficiency of a potential expert . . . .” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[C]ompl[i- ance] with the District's requirement to be registered and to obtain a license” did not go to “the essential purpose” of a contract for “providing management consulting and staffng services”
• “[C]ompl[iance] with the District’s requirement to be reg- istered and to obtain a license” did not go to “the essential purpose” of a contract for “providing management consult- ing and staffing services”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).