Case Summaries

Legal Malpractice

[05/05] In Re: Teligent, Incorporated
In a dispute arising from an action for legal malpractice, judgment of the district court denying motion to lift bankruptcy protective orders and cross-motion for injunctive relief barring defendant from attacking the validity of a settlement agreement on the grounds of waiver is affirmed where: 1) defendant-law firm failed to make the requisite showing to lift orders; and 2) it was not a party in interest with standing such that its failure to contest the validity of settlement agreement constituted waiver.

[04/19] Callahan v. Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher
In a dispute alleging professional malpractice arising from the drafting of a deficient partnership agreement by the defendant, summary judgment on the ground that action was time-barred is reversed because placement of actual injury upon the execution of the defective agreement was erroneous where CCP section 340.6 (a)(1), tolled the limitations period until plaintiff could establish a cause of action for legal malpractice.

[04/13] Knopick v. Connelly
In a dispute arising from a legal malpractice claim and the timeliness of underlying tort action, summary judgment in favor of defendant on the ground that action was time-barred is reversed where district court failed to apply the discovery rule to underlying claim, and there was a genuine issue of fact prohibiting summary dismissal.

[03/04] Augusta v. Keehn and Associates
In a civil action alleging legal malpractice, order denying petition by plaintiff to compel arbitration of action is affirmed, as it is supported by substantial evidence.

[01/13] Cassel v. Superior Court
In plaintiff's malpractice action against his attorneys, claiming that by bad advice, deception, and coercion, the attorneys, who has a conflict of interest, induced him to settle for a lower amount than he had told them he would accept in the underlying action, the court of appeals' judgment vacating the trial court's grant of defendant attorneys motion to exclude all evidence of private attorney-client discussions immediately preceding, and during, the mediation concerning mediation settlement strategies and defendants' efforts to persuade plaintiff to reach a settlement in the mediation, is reversed where: 1) the result reached by the court of appeals contravenes the Legislature's explicit command that, unless the confidentiality of a particular communicative is expressly waived, under statutory procedures, by all mediation "participants," or at least by all those "participants" by or for whom it was prepared, things said or written for the purpose of and pursuant to a mediation shall be inadmissible in any civil action; 2) as the statutes make clear, confidentiality, unless waived, extends beyond utterances or writings in the course of a mediation, and thus is not confined to communications that occur between mediation disputants during the mediation proceeding itself, and by holding otherwise, and overturning the trial court's exclusionary order, the court of appeal erred.

Read More

Labor & Employment Law

[02/03] Lawson v. FMR, LLC
In two separate but related cases under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, alleging unlawful retaliation by employers that are private companies that act under contract as advisers to and managers of mutual funds organized under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the district court's denial of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim is reversed, as the whistleblower protection afforded by section 806(a) of the Act applies only to the employees of public companies as defined in the Act, and not to an employee of a contractor or subcontractor of a public company reporting suspected violations relating to fraud against shareholders of the public company.

[02/03] Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp.
In a dispute over the violation of an employment severance agreement, the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award is affirmed, where: 1) the severance agreement called for arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act; 2) the district court did not err by not conducting a merits review of the award; and 3) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law governing the severance agreement. Denial of the appellant's motion for contempt is also affirmed, where under the plain terms of a permanent injunction issued by the court, the employer was entitled to delete documents from the appellant's computer.

[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.

[02/02] Lazaro v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
On appeal of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board that denied the plaintiff's claim for relief under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act, the order is vacated and the case remanded, where: 1) the Board had jurisdiction to determine whether the Veterans Administration properly afforded the plaintiff the right to compete for the job and whether it properly determined that the plaintiff was not qualified for the position; and 2) the Board committed legal error by concluding that the administrative judge properly determined that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim and that the administrative judge's analysis was not erroneous.

[02/02] Gentry v. Siegel
In bankruptcy proceedings in which former employees of the debtor filed claims for unpaid overtime wages, the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a Rule 9014 motion and its refusal to allow the claimants to pursue class actions is affirmed, where: 1) the bankruptcy court was within its discretion to rule that the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees; 2) notice of the bankruptcy process to the named claimants was not constitutionally deficient; and 3) with respect to unnamed claimants, the named claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice.

Read More