--- title: "Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation" meta: "og:description": "The law and legal expert was barred from opining on contract formation, interpretation, and construction" "og:title": "Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The law and legal expert was barred from opining on contract formation, interpretation, and construction" --- # Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation Posted on April 20, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler These two consolidated cases stem from a train derailment involving a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) train that occurred on June 27, 2022, on BNSF’s track near Mendon, Missouri. BNSF filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Defendants’ disclosed experts, [Allen Rostron](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Allen-Rostron/1573327) and [Jasmine Abdel-khalik](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Jasmine-Abdel-Khalik/1573329), both of whom are law school professors. BNSF argued that the opinions of the two professors should be excluded as improper legal conclusions. ## **Law And Legal Expert Witnesses** [Allen Rostron](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Allen-Rostron/1573327) received a J.D. degree from Yale Law School in 1994. He served as a law clerk for Judge T. S. Ellis III in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia from 1994 to 1995. He also practiced law at the Cravath, Swaine & Moore law firm in New York City from 1995 to 1999, and at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, DC from 1999 to 2003. Rostron has been a law professor at UMKC since 2003. The courses that he teaches include Constitutional Law and Torts. [Discover more cases with Allen Rostron as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1573327&pId=3). [Jasmine C. Abdel-khalik](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Jasmine-Abdel-Khalik/1573329) is a full Professor of Law at the University of Missouri – Kansas City (UMKC) School of Law. She received her B.A. degree in history and sociology from Cornell University in 1997 and her J.D. degree from the University of Michigan in 2000. She worked at Baker & McKenzie, in the Chicago office, for three and a half years and then worked at Freeborn and Peters, now Smith Gambrell Russell, for nearly one and a half years. [Want to know more about the challenges Jasmine Abdel-khalik has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1573329&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** Allen Rostron was supposed to offer an opinion “on whether Amtrak is a governmental entity, for constitutional purposes, when it sells tickets to passengers.” In his report, Rostron concluded that “it is his opinion, based on a reasonable degree of certainty as a constitutional scholar, that Amtrak is engaged in government action, for constitutional purposes, when it conducts its activities, and those activities would include selling tickets to train passengers.” Rostron reached his conclusion by considering the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and other general characteristics of Amtrak, and by examining and applying case law from the United States Supreme Court to the facts and circumstances of these two consolidated cases. Abdelkhalik was supposed to offer an opinion as to “whether the facts as to the structure of the terms, complexity of the language, punctuation as well as the factual manner in which the Amtrak’s Arbitration Agreement and its delegation clause were made available to the passengers, if at all, speaks to the validity and scope of those alleged agreements.” Abdel-khalik stated in her report: “I have examined Amtrak’s Arbitration Agreement and delegation clause and, in my opinion, have identified issues with contract interpretation, enforceability, and formation.” Like Rostron, Abdel-khalik based her opinion on case law. In her report, she offered a number of opinions such as whether the language of Amtrak’s Arbitration Agreement, and more specifically its delegation clause, is ambiguous, and whether the delegation clause is unenforceable or invalid as unconscionable. She also offered opinions as to whether the various passengers formed a contract with Amtrak. In reaching her conclusions, she examined the law of agency and legal principles of actual and apparent authority. ### _**Analysis**_ Rostron and Abdel-khalik are legal experts, who are being offered to provide their legal opinions regarding a number of legal issues in dispute in these two consolidated cases. They are not being offered to assist a factfinder in understanding a disputed fact. ### **Allen Rostron** With regard to Rostron, Defendants argued that his opinion — that Amtrak is engaged in a government action for constitutional purposes when it sells tickets — is based on a review of the facts. But whether Amtrak is engaged in a government action for purposes of the Constitution is a legal conclusion, and Defendants admitted that Rostron relied extensively on cases from the Supreme Court in reaching his conclusion. They argued that “he reviewed those cases, not for their legal principles, but for their rendition of similar facts essential to answering the question posed by this Court and for the way that the Court treated those facts.” In other words, Rostron formed his opinion by looking for legal precedent, and he then applied his knowledge of the law to the facts. This is legal reasoning and analysis. As a result, the Court found that Defendants are offering Rostron to provide legal opinion, contrary to [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.). ### **Jasmine C. Abdel-khalik** As for Professor Abdel-khalik, Defendants argued that her expert opinion is being offered to assist the Court in understanding how a consumer might understand Amtrak’s Arbitration Agreement. Defendants’ characterization of Abdel-khalik’s report is not accurate. Abdel-khalik did more than “occasionally” reference legal terminology or cases. Basically, she applied the facts of the case — which does include the language of the Arbitration Agreement — to what she considered to be relevant case law. She offered opinions on a number of legal issues involved in this dispute including the following: whether Amtrak’s Arbitration Agreement is ambiguous; whether it is unconscionable; whether there was mutual assent; whether a contract was formed; if a contract was formed, what are its terms; and whether the Defendant passengers can be bound by the actions of persons who bought tickets for them. ## **Held** The Court granted BNSF Railway Company’s motion to exclude the opinions of Defendants’ experts Allen Rostron and Jasmine Abdel-Khalik. ## **Key Takeaway** Contract formation, interpretation, and construction are legal issues to be determined by the Court. Like Rostron, Abdel-khalik formed her opinions by applying her knowledge of the law to the facts of the case, which is legal reasoning. Abdel-khalik is not being offered to assist a trier-of-fact in understanding a disputed fact, but rather Defendants sought to introduce Abdel-khalik’s legal opinions, which is not allowed. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-20T213123.718.jpg) [**Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/law-and-legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-contract-formation/law-and-legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-contract-formation)![Economics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Technical Difficulties](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-20T192020.223.jpg) [**Economics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Technical Difficulties**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/law-and-legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-contract-formation/economics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-technical-difficulties)![Hospitality Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Guest Safety](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-20T153714.677.jpg) [**Hospitality Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Guest Safety**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/law-and-legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-contract-formation/hospitality-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-guest-safety)![Radiology Expert was Allowed to Opine on the Extent of the Injuries](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-17T212119.557.jpg) [**Radiology Expert was Allowed to Opine on the Extent of the Injuries**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/law-and-legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-contract-formation/radiology-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-extent-of-the-injuries)![Radiology Expert Allowed to Opine on Emergency Care](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-17T151703.135.jpg) [**Radiology Expert Allowed to Opine on Emergency Care**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/law-and-legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-contract-formation/radiology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emergency-care)