Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendants, corporate entities and individuals, at the close of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief in the bench trial held on her claims, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.On the scheduled day for trial, the district court noted that Plaintiff’s claims were “not entirely clear” but understood them to constitute a derivative action seeking forced dissolution of the corporations. Plaintiff’s evidence in support of her case focused primarily on allegations of corporate records mismanagement. At the close of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for Defendants. The court then granted an individual defendant attorney fees pursuant to the equity exception to the American Rule. The Supreme Court affirmed and granted Defendants’ request to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, holding (1) the district court did not err in granting judgment in favor of Defendants; (2) the district court did not err in granting attorney fees; (3) Plaintiff was not denied a fair trial; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in the administration of the trial. View "McCann v. McCann" on Justia Law

The Pennsylvania State Police employed Conard for 17 years as a 911 dispatcher. Conard left her employment in 2002 to move with her husband, who was on active military deployment. She had “outstanding personnel evaluations” but her supervisors, Tripp and Hile, had disagreements with Conard, arising from Conard’s earlier lawsuit. Conard returned to Pennsylvania in 2004 and reapplied for her position. The Police told Conard that she would be hired subject to a background check but ultimately did not offer her employment. Conard alleges that she was told that Hile and Tripp caused rejection of her application. Conard filed an administrative charge of gender discrimination, then filed her initial civil rights action, alleging retaliation. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal. Conard alleges that in the following years, she was unable to obtain employment because the defendants gave prospective employers “negative, false, and defamatory” statements in response to reference requests and stated that “[she] was not eligible to return.” The district court held that most of Conard’s claims were barred, having been adjudicated in her prior action, and dismissed her retaliation claim. The Third Circuit reversed as to Conard’s First Amendment retaliation claim. The framework for First Amendment claims brought by government employees against their employers does not apply to Conard’s claim, because the speech which Conard alleges triggered the retaliation—filing administrative complaints and a lawsuit—occurred after she had left her employment. While significant time passed between Conard’s earlier complaint and the alleged retaliation, there is no bright-line rule for the time that may pass between protected speech and actionable retaliation. View "Conard v. Pennsylvania State Police" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of a Chapter 11 petition filed by the former board members of Sino. The panel held that the bankruptcy court properly dismissed the action because plaintiffs lacked corporate authority under Nevada law when they filed the petition where a receiver appointed by the Nevada state court already had removed them from the corporation's board of directors. Therefore, plaintiffs were not authorized to file the petition on behalf of the corporation. View "Sino Clean Energy, Inc. v. Seiden" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Time Warner in an action brought by Cableview seeking to recover a payment it made to Time Warner based on a disputed indemnity claim. The court held that there were two disputed issues of fact regarding whether Time Warner initially gave its consent to the Installation Agreement assignment through its director of technical operations and whether Time Warner entered into new vendor contracts with FTS, which it later revoked, that made formal assignment of the Installation Agreement unnecessary. The court held, however, that these disputed issues were not material and that a reasonable jury could not find for Cableview on duress. The court also held that the settlement agreement contained sufficiently definite terms and that Cableview could not succeed on its other claims despite the settlement. View "Cableview Communications of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable Southeast, LLC" on Justia Law

Following an investigation into violations of the Secondhand Dealers Law (SDL), the State of California, by and through the District Attorneys of Riverside and Shasta Counties, filed an action pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., (Unfair Competition Law or UCL) to enjoin petitioner GameStop, Inc., (GameStop) against noncompliance. GameStop filed a motion to remove the action from the County of Riverside pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 394, claiming that the district attorney, as an official elected by the County of Riverside, was a local governmental entity. The trial court denied the motion, giving rise to this petition for writ of mandate by GameStop. The SDL requires secondhand dealers to report the name, address, and photo identification of the seller, a complete description of the serialized property, a certification from the seller that she or he is the owner of the property, and a fingerprint of the seller. During the time period enumerated in the complaint, GameStop failed to comply with the reporting, holding, and inspection requirements of the SDL. The Court of Appeal concluded the mandatory removal provisions of section 394 were inapplicable to UCL actions brought by a district attorney to enforce provisions of the statewide SDL, and denied GameStop's petition for relief. View "GameStop, Inc. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Where such delivery of summonses to attorneys of companies provides actual notice to a foreign organization, it satisfies Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 4(c)(3)(D). The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus brought by companies owned and controlled by the Chinese government, seeking to vacate the denial of their motion to quash service of criminal summonses the government had delivered to attorneys for the companies. The panel held that the evidence established that the companies had actual notice of the summonses and thus the district court did not err, let alone clearly err, in denying their motion to quash service. View "In re Pangang Group Co." on Justia Law

Sabafon, a telephone company based wanted cards to provide prepaid minutes of phone use plus a game of chance. Both the number for phone time and the symbols representing prizes were to be covered by a scratch-off coating. Emirat promised to supply Sabafon with 25 million high-security scratch-off cards. Emirat contracted with High Point Printing, which, in turn, engaged WS to do the work. Emirat paid High Point about $700,000. Three batches of the cards tested as adequately secure, but the testing company indicated that, under some circumstances, the digits and game symbols could be seen on some cards in a fourth batch. Emirat rejected the whole print run. High Point was out of business. Emirat sued WS, arguing that its settlement agreement with WS, after an initial run of cards was not correctly shipped, subjects WS to Emirat's contract with High Point. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for WS, noting that with a sufficiently high-tech approach, any security can be compromised, but no one will spend $1,000 to break the security of a card promising $50 worth of phone time. The contract is silent and does not promise any level of security, except through the possibility that usages of trade are read into every contract for scratch-off cards. Even if WS assumed High Point’s promises, neither promised any higher level of security than was provided. WS’s cards passed normal security tests repeatedly. View "Emirat AG v. WS Packaging Group, Inc." on Justia Law

In November 2014, officers from the Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement (Bureau) conducted an investigation regarding underage persons present inside appellee Jet-Set Restaurant, LLC (Jet-Set), a licensed establishment located in Reading, Berks County. Bureau officers identified four underage females inside Jet- Set. The officers observed three of the four females enter Jet-Set after providing a doorman with identification that showed they were underage. Bureau officers also observed one of the females purchase a bottle of beer inside Jet-Set and another one of the females consume two bottles of beer purchased by another customer. Bureau officers subsequently learned one of the females had been inside Jet-Set before. The Bureau cited Jet-Set for: (1) permitting minors to frequent the premises in violation of Section 4-493(14) of the Liquor Code (frequenting count); and (2) furnishing alcohol to underage minors in violation of Section 4-493(1) of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. 4-493(1) (furnishing count). The Bureau appealed the dismissal of the frequenting count, but both the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and the Berks County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the dismissal on the basis that “frequent” means “to visit often or to resort to habitually or to recur again and again, or more than one or two visits” and the Bureau had not established a violation based on the isolated occurrence observed by Bureau officers in November 2014. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted discretionary review to determine whether the definition of “frequent” set forth in Appeal of Speranza, 206 A.2d 292 (Pa. 1965) continued to apply to Section 4-493(14) of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. 4-493(14), in light of subsequent amendments to the statute. The Court concluded Speranza still controlled and, accordingly, affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court. View "Pa. St. Police v. Jet-Set Restaurant, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendants Barry Feldman, the New England Expedition-Colchester, LCC (NEE-Colchester), and Colchester Managing Member, LLC (CMM), petitioned the Vermont Supreme Court to strike jury-awarded punitive damages and find that the trial court erred in numerous evidentiary rulings, in denying defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, and in denying defendants’ motion for a new trial. This appeal concerned a commercial dispute over the proceeds from a 2012 sale of a grocery store between plaintiffs Eugene Beaudoin, the New England Expedition Limited Partnership II (NEELP-II), and the New England Expedition Limited Partnership IV (NEELPIV), and defendants. Prior to the transaction at issue, Feldman and Beaudoin had a sixteen-year business relationship during which they developed commercial properties throughout New England. Beaudoin and Feldman developed a grocery store in Colchester (the Colchester store) in 1997 or 1998. In 2012, the Colchester store sold to a third party for $14,500,000. The net proceeds before distribution were $1,300,000. Feldman would have been entitled to two-thirds and Beaudoin to one-third of the proceeds. However, Feldman distributed 100% of the net proceeds to himself as reimbursement for monthly payments made by Feldman to Beaudoin from 2005 through 2010. Consequently, Beaudoin filed suit against Feldman for claims of conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment and sought both compensatory and punitive damages. After hearing all the evidence and closing arguments, the jury determined that Feldman had converted Beaudoin’s share of the Colchester-store sale proceeds, that he breached his fiduciary duty to Beaudoin, and that he was unjustly enriched by the sale. As a result, they awarded $432,300 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages to Beaudoin. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court struck the award of punitive damages, but affirmed in all other respect, finding no other reversible error. View "Beaudoin v. Feldman" on Justia Law

IAS filed suit against defendant and his company, alleging claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, fraud by nondisclosure, and breach of contract. Defendant filed a counter suit for breach of his employment contract with IAS. The Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of IAS's fraudulent inducement claim where the district court's assessment that there was no fraud did not appear to have been based on any assessment of the evidence presented at trial. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of defendants on IAS's breach of contract claim where the district court's finding that IAS did not suffer any damages as a result of any breach of the asset purchase agreement was plausible in light of the record as a whole. Finally, the court vacated the severance pay award in favor of defendant because, even assuming that defendant was terminated for reasons other than cause, he failed to satisfy the second condition precedent to his receipt of severance pay: execution of the required release and waiver. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "IAS Service Group, LLC v. Jim Buckley & Assoc." on Justia Law