News & Resources

Case Summaries

[03/09] In re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Secs. Litig.
In a securities class action alleging that defendants fraudulently accounted for a transaction, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation because their expert's testimony did not suffice to draw the requisite causal connection between the information in the article at issue and the fraud alleged in the complaint; and 2) the generalized investor reaction of concern causing a temporary share price decline was far too tenuously connected -- indeed, by a metaphoric thread -- to the transaction to support liability.

[03/03] Teachers' Ret. Sys. of La. v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
In a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of AIG for breach of fiduciary duty against PricewaterhouseCoopers under New York law, the Delaware Supreme Court certifies the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Would the doctrine of in pari delicto bar a derivative claim under New York law where a corporation sues its outside auditor for professional malpractice or negligence based on the auditor's failure to detect fraud committed by the corporation; and, the outside auditor did not knowingly participate in the corporation's fraud, but instead, failed to satisfy professional standards in its audits of the corporation's financial statements?

[02/26] D&J Tire Inc. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co.
In an action by a minority shareholder for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of defendant-executive's failure to disclose that defendant corporation was in talks to be acquired when the executive served as a mandatary on plaintiff's behalf to redeem his shares, summary judgment for defendant is vacated where: 1) because Louisiana's prescription statute did not bar plaintiff's rescission claim, the district court needs to determine whether plaintiff could prove that defendant's directors failed to disclose a material fact; 2) because defendant's directors were acting in their official capacity when redeeming plaintiff's stock, Connecticut courts would impose a fiduciary duty to disclose material facts in this situation; and 3) there was no reason, under Louisiana law, to apply another prescriptive period merely because defendant was also CFO of the corporation when the claim was based on his duties as mandatary.

[02/26] Ghadrdan v. Gorabi
In plaintiff's breach of contract suit against defendant that arose out of a longstanding business relationship, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded evidence of a plea agreement and conviction of a corporation, of which plaintiff was the CEO and sole shareholder, to impeach plaintiff and show his motive and knowledge.

[02/25] Carpenters Dist. Council v. JNL Const. Co.
In an ERISA action on behalf of certain pension funds against a construction company claiming that defendants failed to contribute union employees' fringe benefits to the funds as required by collective bargaining agreements, summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where plaintiffs did not produce sufficient evidence to show the absence of trialworthy issues on the issue of whether defendant corporation was used to perpetrate a fraud.

[02/25] Miles Farm Supply, LLC v. Helena Chem. Co.
In plaintiff's action for tortious interference alleging that defendant aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty by three of its employees, judgment of the district court is affirmed where plaintiff failed as a matter of law to show that defendant had actual knowledge that the three employees were breaching a fiduciary duty.

[02/24] V&M Star, LP v. Centimark Corp.
In an action claiming diversity jurisdiction, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is remanded with instructions to resolve the jurisdictional issue by determining plaintiff's citizenship due to: 1) the complexity of the jurisdictional facts in the case, because of the members and sub-members (and potential submembers) that comprise plaintiff-company; and 2) the fact that no controlling precedent exists regarding how to determine the citizenship of a French S.A.R.L. for diversity-jurisdiction purposes.

[02/24] In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena (T-112)
District court's decision holding twelve corporations, interrelated for-profit and not-for-profit corporations suspected of participating in the financing of terrorist activity, in contempt for refusing to turn over documents demanded by grand jury subpoena duces tecum is affirmed where: 1) a grand jury enforcement action is not the appropriate place to litigate the validity of one corporations claims of illegal wiretapping; and 2) the other eleven corporations' claim that the district court abused its discretion by finding them in contempt because the order was ambiguous, and that they did not know they were violating a valid decree when they failed to comply, does not square with the facts of the record.

More...

[03/09] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.

[03/08] McBeth v. Himes
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of an investigation by the sheriff's office and the Colorado Department of Human Services that resulted in plaintiff surrendering her license to run a daycare facility in Colorado, partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity to defendant-officials is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff voluntarily relinquished her license before any suspension proceedings could take place; and 2) defendants made a prima facie showing that they acted objectively reasonably when they sought suspension of plaintiff's daycare license. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiff failed to allege and prove that the state officials lacked cause to seek suspension of her license.

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

[03/05] Quasius v. Schwan Food Co.
In an employment discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant failed to file a motion to withdraw his dispositive admissions after the district court provided ample notice and opportunity to do so.

[03/04] Smith v. Adventist Health Sys.
In plaintiff's action against defendant-hospital group seeking a preliminary injunction for rejecting his application for hospital privileges and medical staff membership at defendant's hospital, judgment granting the injunction and restoring his privileges is affirmed and the court did not err when it: 1) impliedly found that a statutorily required injunction bond had been waived or forfeited; 2) expressly found that plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits; and 3) balanced the likely interim harm to the parties of granting or denying the preliminary injunction.

[03/04] Uphoff Figueroa v. Alejandro
In plaintiff's action against his employer, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) and several PREPA officials, claiming that the new Popular Democratic Party (PDP) regime discriminated against him because he was a member of the New Progressive Party (NPP), judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) under Branti v, Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980), and its progeny, the position of administrator is not within First Amendment protection because it is a policy position; 2) political discrimination and retaliation claims under the First Amendment cannot be restated as claims under the Equal Protection Clause; and 3) plaintiff did not state a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act because he did not allege he was involved in FLSA-protected activity.

[03/04] Roche v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
Decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a case brought by a former FAA employer who was terminated from his position as an Air Traffic Control Specialist for sexual harassment is affirmed as the Board did not err in finding that it may hear FAA removal appeals only from Title 5-qualifying employees.

[03/04] Budde v. Kane County Forest Pres.
In a police chief's action against his former employer claiming discrimination based on his disability of alcoholism, in violation of the ADA, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) the employer terminated the plaintiff because of his misconduct, not due to discrimination; 2) plaintiff was not "qualified" to perform his job as police chief based on his failure to comply with workplace rules and his inability to operate a vehicle; and 3) plaintiff's claims for failure to accommodate his alcoholism and retaliation for seeking an accommodation are without merit.

More...