WARREN HILL, LLC v. NEPTUNE INVESTORS, LLC, 2:20-cv-00452

Warren Hill sued Neptune Investors and affiliated defendants under the Pennsylvania Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and unjust enrichment, alleging SFR fraudulently transferred assets to avoid satisfying a $6,226,688.19 judgment entered against SFR in prior litigation.
Warren Hill sold its interest in Vendor Assistance Program (VAP) to SFR effective January 1, 2016 under a membership interest purchase agreement (MIPA) that obligated SFR to pay specified sums and a percentage of trust certificate income for 2016–2018.
The district court entered summary judgment for Warren Hill on liability and damages, including a declaratory award of 16.623% of certain unreleased trust receipts; that judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Central legal issue here is SFR solvency as of January 1, 2018 under Florida law; Warren Hill contends SFR was rendered insolvent by transfers to defendants.
Experts: Warren Hill’s expert Buchakjian opined SFR was insolvent with liabilities around $17.12 million; defendants’ expert Couillard opines SFR was solvent by roughly $750,000, disputing inclusion/timing of deferred taxes and Warren Hill obligations.
At the preliminary injunction hearing the court relied on Buchakjian and allowed Couillard to testify; Warren Hill now moves to exclude Couillard from a jury trial under Rules 702 and 703.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (reliability)	Couillard relied on selectively provided, unverified defendant data, did not review key accounting records, and skimmed the MIPA; opinion is unreliable	Couillard is qualified (CFA, ASA), reviewed a broad record, explained methodology and calculations; challenges go to weight, not admissibility	Court denied exclusion; Couillard accepted as qualified and his methods sufficiently reliable for admissibility; credibility and weight reserved for jury
Reliance on underlying facts under Rule 703	Couillard relied on inadmissible or self-serving facts supplied by defendants and failed to independently verify critical data	Rule 703 permits experts to rely on facts they were made aware of; other experts rely on similar materials and cross-examination can expose flaws	Court rejected exclusion under Rule 703; factual reliance is for cross-examination and jury evaluation
Qualification and fit	Qualifications may affect reliability	Couillard has valuation and solvency analysis experience; he limited his opinion to solvency as of Jan 1, 2018	Court accepted Couillard as qualified; fit satisfied; any weaknesses go to weight before the jury

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping standard for expert evidence)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert standard applies to technical and other specialized knowledge)
Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396 (3d Cir.) (three-part Rule 702 framework: qualification, reliability, fit)
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir.) (factors for evaluating expert methodology and Rule 703 discussion)
Kannankeril v. Terminix Int'l, 128 F.3d 802 (3d Cir.) (credibility and weight are for the factfinder; Rule 702 has liberal admissibility)
Stecyk v. Bell Helicopter Textron, 295 F.3d 408 (3d Cir.) (burden on opposing counsel to explore expert assumptions via cross-examination under Rule 703)
ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254 (3d Cir.) (expert exclusion where opinion rested on unexplained internal projections)
United States v. Mitchell, 365 F.3d 215 (3d Cir.) (gatekeeping does not replace the adversary process; cross-examination exposes flawed expertise)