The case involves an enforcement action by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Gregory Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management, LLC. The SEC alleged that Lemelson made false statements of material fact, engaged in a fraudulent scheme, and violated securities laws, resulting in approximately $1.3 million in illegal profits. The SEC sought disgorgement of these profits, a permanent injunction, and civil monetary penalties. Lemelson moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court dismissed one of the challenged statements. The SEC filed an amended complaint, and the jury ultimately found Lemelson liable for three statements but rejected other claims.The District Court for the District of Massachusetts held Lemelson in contempt for violating a protective order and threatening a priest who provided information to the SEC. After the jury verdict, the district court issued a final judgment, including a five-year injunction against Lemelson and a $160,000 civil penalty. Lemelson appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. Lemelson then moved for attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), arguing that the SEC's demands were excessive compared to the final judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of Lemelson's motion for fees and costs. The appellate court found that the district court incorrectly compared the SEC's demand to the scope of the initial claims rather than the final judgment obtained. The appellate court vacated the denial of fees and costs and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the SEC's demands were excessive and unreasonable compared to the final judgment. The appellate court also noted that the district court should consider whether Lemelson acted in bad faith or if special circumstances make an award unjust. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lemelson" on Justia Law

Ogen and Dorit Perry, along with their limited partnership Dahlex LP, sought a writ of mandate to compel Milestone Financial LLC and its managers to produce corporate records under the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. The trial court partially granted the petition, ordering the disclosure of some records but redacting member names and addresses, deeming the member list a protected trade secret. The court also declined to order the production of audited records.Milestone appealed, arguing the Perrys lacked standing, the records request did not meet statutory standards, and the redaction order should have included more documents. The Perrys cross-appealed, contending the member list is not a trade secret and the court erred in not ordering audited records. They also appealed the trial court's order on attorney fees and costs, arguing the awarded amount did not reflect the findings in the writ order and was an abuse of discretion.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, found substantial evidence supporting the trial court's decision that the Perrys' request was reasonably related to their interests. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the member list is a trade secret but directed the trial court to amend its order to require Milestone to provide financial statements accompanied by the appropriate report or certificate. The appellate court also reversed the attorney fee award and remanded for reconsideration, requiring the trial court to provide a more detailed explanation for the reduced fee award. The judgment was otherwise affirmed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. View "Perry v. Stuart" on Justia Law

In 2023, James Broad and Rebecca McCrensky began operating a car-rental agency, Becky's Broncos, LLC, on Nantucket Island without the necessary local approvals. The Town of Nantucket and the Nantucket Town Select Board ordered Becky's to cease operations. Becky's sought preliminary injunctive relief in the District of Massachusetts to continue their business.The District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Becky's request for a preliminary injunction. The court found insufficient evidence of discriminatory effect under the dormant Commerce Clause and concluded that Becky's had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Becky's appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that Becky's did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claim, as the ordinance did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses. The court also found that Becky's failed to establish a likelihood of success on its antitrust claims due to a lack of a concrete theory of liability. Additionally, Becky's procedural due process argument was rejected because it did not establish a property interest in the required medallions. Lastly, the court held that the ordinance survived rational basis review under substantive due process, as it was rationally related to legitimate government interests in managing traffic and congestion on the island. View "Becky's Broncos, LLC v. Town of Nantucket" on Justia Law

PharmacyChecker.com LLC, an online pharmacy accreditation and price comparison service, sued its competitor LegitScript LLC for allegedly engaging in a group boycott in violation of antitrust laws. LegitScript moved for summary judgment, arguing that PharmacyChecker lacked antitrust standing because its business facilitated the illegal importation of foreign drugs, thus precluding any legally cognizable injury under Section 4 of the Clayton Act.The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied LegitScript's motion for summary judgment. The court found that PharmacyChecker's business was legal and that LegitScript had not shown that PharmacyChecker itself engaged in illegal activity. The court also noted that the facilitation of potentially illegal activities by some of PharmacyChecker's users did not bar its antitrust standing. LegitScript's motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal was granted, and the case was brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that PharmacyChecker had antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act. The court relied on Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedents, including Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., and Memorex Corp. v. IBM. These cases established that neither the equitable defense of in pari delicto nor unclean hands could bar a plaintiff from bringing an antitrust suit, even if the plaintiff's business involved some illegal conduct. The court concluded that PharmacyChecker's facilitation of potentially illegal drug importation by some users did not negate its standing to sue for antitrust violations. View "PHARMACYCHECKER.COM LLC V. LEGITSCRIPT LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Andrew Roth, a shareholder of Estée Lauder Companies Inc. and Altice USA, Inc., filed suits alleging that controlling shareholders of these companies engaged in transactions that violated Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act. Roth claimed that the controlling shareholders sold shares of the companies while the companies repurchased their own shares, and sought to pair these transactions to impose liability for short-swing profits.In the Southern District of New York, Roth's complaint against LAL Family Corporation and LAL Family Partners L.P. was dismissed. The court held that issuer repurchases cannot be paired with insiders' sales of outstanding shares to create Section 16(b) liability. Similarly, in the Eastern District of New York, Roth's complaint against Patrick Drahi and other defendants was dismissed. The court relied in part on the analysis from the Southern District of New York, concluding that Roth's legal theory was invalid.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the cases and affirmed the judgments of dismissal. The court held that Section 16(b) does not impose liability for pairing sales by controlling shareholders with share repurchases by corporations they control. The court reasoned that under applicable state law, repurchased shares are transformed into treasury shares, which are different in kind from outstanding shares and cannot be paired. Therefore, Roth's theory of liability was rejected, and the judgments dismissing his complaints were affirmed. View "Roth v. LAL Family Corp." on Justia Law

Renaissance Medical Foundation (the Practice) is a nonprofit health organization certified by the Texas Medical Board. The Practice employed Dr. Michael Burke, a neurosurgeon, to provide medical services to its patients. Rebecca Lugo brought her daughter to Doctors Hospital at Renaissance for brain surgery performed by Dr. Burke. The surgery resulted in permanent neurological damage to Lugo’s daughter. Dr. Burke later expressed that a retractor used during the procedure migrated into the child’s brainstem, causing the injury. Lugo filed a lawsuit alleging negligence by Dr. Burke and sought to hold the Practice vicariously liable for his actions.The trial court denied the Practice’s motion for summary judgment, which argued that it could not be held vicariously liable for Dr. Burke’s negligence because it did not control the manner in which he provided medical care and that Dr. Burke was an independent contractor. The court concluded that Dr. Burke’s employment agreement granted the Practice sufficient control over him to trigger vicarious liability. The court authorized a permissive interlocutory appeal of the ruling.The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that Dr. Burke was an employee of the Practice under traditional common-law factors and was acting within the scope of his employment when the alleged negligence occurred. The Practice then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Texas.The Supreme Court of Texas held that a nonprofit health organization may not be held vicariously liable if exercising its right of control regarding the alleged negligence would interfere with its employee physician’s exercise of independent medical judgment. The court concluded that the Practice did not conclusively demonstrate such interference and affirmed the denial of the Practice’s motion for summary judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "RENAISSANCE MEDICAL FOUNDATION v. LUGO" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, William Boggs, was injured on August 9, 2016, while transferring liquid asphalt from a tanker truck to a distribution truck in Framingham, Massachusetts. He was sprayed with liquid asphalt, resulting in burns and permanent injuries. Boggs was employed by All States Asphalt, Inc. (All States), which accepted his workers' compensation claim. Boggs filed a complaint against Johnston Asphalt, LLC, alleging negligence in maintaining the truck that caused his injuries.The Kent County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Johnston Asphalt on February 27, 2024. The court found no genuine issues of material fact and concluded that Johnston Asphalt owed no duty to Boggs. The court noted that the truck was owned and maintained by All States, and the only person who worked on the truck was an All States employee, Michael Kelly. The court also rejected Boggs' argument to pierce the corporate veil, finding no evidence that Johnston Asphalt and All States were not separate entities.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that Boggs failed to present competent evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding Johnston Asphalt's duty of care. The court found that the single piece of mail addressed to Kelly at Johnston Asphalt's address was insufficient to establish that Kelly was an employee of Johnston Asphalt. The court also upheld the lower court's decision not to pierce the corporate veil, as Boggs did not meet the burden of proof required to disregard the corporate entity. View "Boggs v. Johnston Asphalt, LLC" on Justia Law

Restaurant patrons filed personal injury lawsuits after becoming ill from eating contaminated cilantro. The distributor, Martin Produce, Inc., who sold the cilantro to the restaurants, filed a third-party complaint for contribution against the wholesalers, Jack Tuchten Wholesale Produce, Inc., and La Galera Produce, Inc., from whom it purchased the cilantro. The issue was whether Martin satisfied its obligation to notify the wholesalers of its claim of breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).The circuit court of Cook County granted summary judgment in favor of the wholesalers, finding that Martin failed to provide direct notice of its claim as required by the UCC. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the wholesalers had actual knowledge of the defect due to the personal injury lawsuits filed against them, which informed them of the alleged contamination.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court's judgment. The court held that the wholesalers had actual knowledge of the defect because they were named as defendants in the personal injury lawsuits, which provided them with sufficient notice of the alleged contamination. The court concluded that Martin was not required to provide direct notice under the UCC because the wholesalers were already aware of the specific transactions and the alleged defects. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings on Martin's breach of implied warranty of merchantability complaint against the wholesalers. View "Andrews v. Carbon on 26th, LLC" on Justia Law

Peter Farina has lived at the Victor Howell House, a group home for low-income individuals, since 1989. In 2000, the Janet Keenan Housing Corporation (JKHC), a non-profit, purchased the property to maintain it as affordable housing. Recently, JKHC attempted to sell the house to a private third party, leading to two tracks of litigation. The District of Columbia sued JKHC to halt the sale, arguing it violated JKHC’s charitable purposes. As the District and JKHC neared a settlement allowing the sale, Farina sought to intervene but was denied. Farina then filed his own lawsuit, claiming his rights under the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) and the Uniform Trust Code (UTC) were being violated.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied Farina’s motion to intervene in the District’s case, citing untimeliness and lack of standing. The court approved the settlement between the District and JKHC, which allowed the sale to proceed. In Farina’s separate lawsuit, the court ruled against him, stating his TOPA rights were extinguished by the court-approved settlement and that he lacked standing to bring his UTC claim.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court held that Farina’s TOPA rights were not extinguished by the settlement, as the sale was an arm’s-length transaction and not exempt under TOPA. Farina must be given the opportunity to purchase the property under TOPA. However, the court agreed with the lower court that Farina lacked standing to bring his UTC claim, as he was neither a settlor nor a special interest beneficiary of JKHC. The court affirmed the judgment in the District’s case but vacated the judgment in Farina’s case, remanding it for further proceedings to afford Farina his TOPA rights. View "Farina v. Janet Keenan Housing Corporation" on Justia Law

Ezrasons, Inc., a New York corporation and beneficial owner of Barclays PLC shares, initiated a derivative action on behalf of Barclays against several current and former Barclays directors and officers, as well as Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI). The complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duties under English law, causing significant harm to Barclays. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that under English law, only registered members of Barclays could maintain such an action, and Ezrasons was not a registered member.The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the internal affairs doctrine required the application of English law, which precluded Ezrasons from having standing. The court rejected the argument that New York's Business Corporation Law (BCL) sections 626 (a) and 1319 (a) (2) overrode the internal affairs doctrine. The Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing that the internal affairs doctrine applied and that Ezrasons lacked standing under English law.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that the internal affairs doctrine, which mandates that the substantive law of the place of incorporation governs disputes related to corporate internal affairs, was not overridden by BCL sections 626 (a) and 1319 (a) (2). The court found no clear legislative intent to displace the doctrine and concluded that Ezrasons lacked standing under English law to maintain the derivative action. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed, with costs. View "Ezrasons, Inc. v Rudd" on Justia Law