The Virginia Business Litigation Blog

October 29, 2013

Citizenship of LLC Members Determines LLC’s Citizenship for Diversity Purposes

A federal court must determine that it has subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction and that venue is proper before it can adjudicate a matter. If it lacks any one of the three, the court will not proceed, and it need not examine whether the other two requirements are met. In diversity actions, subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the dispute is between citizens of different states. In Liberty Mutual v. KB Home, the Newport News Division of the Eastern District of Virginia found that a plaintiff need not show with legal certainty that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met, but must allege the citizenship of all individual members of a defendant limited liability company to establish the citizenship of the LLC.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company filed a complaint against KB Home, KB Home Raleigh-Durham, Inc. and Stock Building Supply, LLC–a subcontractor for KB Home Raleigh-Durham–seeking a declaratory judgment that it had discharged its duties as defendants’ insurer in a North Carolina state court action. The KB Home defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and improper venue.

To determine whether the amount in controversy requirement for subject matter jurisdiction is met, courts rely on the sum claimed by the plaintiff in good faith. A defendant contesting the amount in controversy must show that it is legally impossible for the plaintiff to recover the amount sought. Liberty Mutual’s complaint alleged in a simple and conclusory fashion that the amount in controversy exceeded the sum or value of $75,000. The defendants pointed out that the complaint also alleged that the insurance policy between the parties was exhausted such that the sum at stake could not exceed $75,000. Liberty Mutual responded that legal defense costs totaling $82,314.74 were at issue as evidenced by a legal billing invoice.

October 21, 2013

Oral Profit Sharing Agreement Held Enforceable

by Lee E. Berlik

Virginia’s statute of frauds provides that “[u]nless a …contract…is in writing and signed by the party to be charged or his agent, no action shall be brought…[u]pon any agreement that is not to be performed within a year.” Va. Code Ann. § 11-2(8). A party wishing to assert the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense to a breach of contract action must show that the parties’ oral agreement was within the statute of frauds. The issue is whether the contract as a whole can be fully performed on one side within a year, even through the occurrence of some improbable event. If a court can conjure up some contingency, no matter how unlikely, that would allow either party to completely perform all of its contractual obligations within one year, the statute of frauds will not apply. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently examined this issue in Blue Sky Travel v. Al Tayyar.

Blue Sky purchased airline tickets that Al Tayyar Group (“ATG”) then resold to the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Higher Education (the “Ministry”). The parties orally agreed to share the profits that ATG realized from the re-sales. When Blue Sky sued ATG for breach of contract, ATG asserted the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense arguing that since Blue Sky’s share of the profits could not be calculated until after the end of the calendar year, an oral contract for profit sharing could not have been performed within a year and therefore fell within the statute of frauds.

The court found that the parties’ agreement was premised on ATG receiving orders for tickets from the Ministry and that without an order, Blue Sky would not purchase tickets and the parties would not share any profits. The contract did not obligate the Ministry to order tickets, so it was possible that the Ministry could have decided not to order any tickets in a year or stopped split money.jpg ordering tickets at any time such that neither Blue Sky nor ATG would be required to perform. Also, the Ministry contract could have been terminated within a year of the parties’ agreement. Therefore, either or both parties could have completed their performance under the oral agreement within a year without breaching or terminating the agreement. The court held that ATG failed to carry its burden of establishing that the parties’ oral agreement could not have been fully performed by either party within a year, and that the oral contract was therefore outside the statute of frauds.

October 7, 2013

References to Marketing Brochure Deemed Insufficient to Support Fraud Claim

by Lee E. Berlik

Although a plaintiff asserting a fraud claim in federal court may allege malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind in general terms, he must plead the circumstances constituting the fraud with particularity, identifying the time, place, content, and maker of each alleged fraudulent circumstance. Failure to plead fraud with sufficient particularity will result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as demonstrated by the recent failed case against Capella University.

Melvin Murphy had a Bachelor of Arts degree and was pursuing an M.B.A. when he received online advertisements for Capella University’s doctoral programs in business management. Capella’s “enrollment counselors” responded aggressively to Murphy’s initial inquiries with calls, emails and marketing materials. Murphy contends that Capella’s promotional materials contained misstatements and misrepresentations upon which he relied when he enrolled in the school’s Ph.D. program in Organization and Management with a specialization in Leadership. For example, one brochure featured testimonials from supposed Capella doctoral students accompanied by photographs and quotes. Murphy asserts that at least one person pictured and quoted was not a graduate of Capella, was not a current student in the Ph.D. program and did not give permission for Capella to use his image. According to Murphy, the promotional materials were false and misleading as Capella did not award doctoral degrees in the field of Organization and Management and had no plans to do so. Capella agents allegedly reemphasized these misrepresentations when speaking with Murphy.

Murphy complains that Capella also failed to tell him that a doctoral candidate in any subject must pass Comprehensive Exams in order to be eligible for a Ph.D. and that most candidates fail these exams. According to Murphy, only 10% of Capella’s degree candidates obtained their desired degree. He asserts that these material omissions happened despite frequent contact with “representatives of Capella, including the Capella ‘enrollment counselors.'”

September 25, 2013

Arbitrator Designation Deemed Severable from Contract

by Lee E. Berlik

Virginia Code § 8.01-581.01 et seq. evidences a public policy favoring arbitration. Virginia’s statutory scheme provides that arbitration agreements between parties are valid and enforceable, and courts uphold the parties’ designated method of appointing an arbitrator. Where the parties’ appointed arbitrator is unable to act and the parties have not provided a method of appointing a successor, the court can make an appointment. Contracting parties are presumed to know the statutory scheme, and they may alter it, but they must do so with clear and unambiguous language. In Schuiling v. Harris, the Virginia Supreme Court considered whether a clause appointing a specific arbitrator was severable from the rest of the contract or integral to the contract rendering the whole agreement unenforceable if the appointed arbitrator was unavailable.

William Schuiling hired Samantha Harris as his housekeeper. The parties signed an arbitration agreement providing that any and all disputes arising out of the employment would be resolved “exclusively by arbitration administered by the National Arbitration Forum…” The agreement also contained a severability clause stating that if any provision of the agreement was found to be invalid or unenforceable, it would be severable from the rest of the agreement and not affect any other provision. The agreement did not contain any other terms relating to non-competition, salary, wages or term of employment. The sole subject of the agreement was arbitration.

Harris filed a complaint against Schuiling alleging multiple torts, statutory violations and breach of contract. Schuiling filed a motion to compel arbitration under Virginia Code § 8.01-581.02(A). Schuiling asserted that the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) was no longer available to arbitrate the dispute and requested the circuit court to appoint a substitute arbitrator pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-581.03. Harris opposed the motion, arguing that NAF’s exclusive designation was an integral part of the contract and that because NAF was unavailable, the whole agreement was unenforceable. The circuit court denied Schuiling’s motion to arbitrate, finding that the parties’ designation of NAF was an integral part of the contract and that NAF’s unavailability rendered the whole agreement unenforceable. Schuiling appealed.

September 23, 2013

Virginia Supreme Court Limits Opportunity to Obtain Quick Dismissals of Noncompete Cases

by Lee E. Berlik

When companies sue their former employees on the ground that they allegedly breached a broadly-worded noncompete agreement, a common defense tactic has been to file a demurrer, arguing that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The thinking was that if the noncompete agreement at issue was overly broad on its face, it would be deemed unenforceable as a matter of law and incapable of supporting a lawsuit. Those days are over, according to Assurance Data Inc. v. Malyevac, an employer-friendly ruling of Virginia’s high court decided earlier this month.

Assurance Data, Inc. (ADI) entered into an agreement with John Malyevac which required Malyevac to sell ADI’s computer products and services. The agreement contained non-competition, non-solicitation, non-disclosure and return-of-confidential-information provisions. A few months after entering into the agreement, Malyevac resigned. ADI filed a complaint in Fairfax County Circuit Court alleging that Malyevac violated the agreement. Malyevac demurred, asserting that the complaint failed to state a cognizable claim.

Like the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss used in federal court, a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint and determines whether a complaint states a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. When ruling on a demurrer, a court may not decide the merits of a claim. (That’s what trials are for). If a complaint contains sufficient facts to inform a defendant of the nature and character of a claim, the complaint will survive a demurrer.

September 16, 2013

In Wrongful Termination Case, Court Employs Burden Shifting Framework Where No Direct Evidence of Discrimination Exists

by Lee E. Berlik

A plaintiff employee with no direct evidence of disability discrimination must establish a prima facie case of wrongful termination. If he succeeds, the defendant employer is required to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination. The burden then shifts back to plaintiff to show that the reason offered was merely a pretext for discrimination. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia recently employed this burden shifting framework in Ruggles v. Virginia Linen Service, Inc. and granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment.

Timothy Ruggles was a route salesman for Virginia Linen Service and New System Linen Service. His duties included bringing extra linens to clients who had run out of linens before their scheduled delivery date. The extra linens rarely weighed more than 25 pounds. Ruggles also acted as a substitute driver for ill or vacationing employees, although he contended that substitute driving or “running a route” was not a primary function of his position. Running a route required him to make new deliveries of linens and pick up bags of soiled linens from customers. Occasionally, the bags of soiled linens weighed up to 100 pounds. When running a route, Ruggles and other employees often separated the heaviest bags of soiled linens into smaller bags to reduce the weight and make the bags easier to lift.

Ruggles suffered a back injury that was not related to his work. As a result, his doctor ultimately placed him on restrictions that prevented him from lifting more than 10 pounds for four weeks. Later, an orthopedic specialist permanently restricted Ruggles from lifting more than 50 pounds and/or continuous lifting of more than 25 pounds. Defendants offered Ruggles a sales position that would not require heavy lifting, but Ruggles rejected the offer. Defendants eventually terminated him based on the permanent restrictions the orthopedic specialist put in place.

September 10, 2013

Even Plaintiffs Can Obtain a Transfer of Venue

by Lee E. Berlik

Upon a showing of a change in circumstances since the suit was originally filed, a plaintiff can successfully move for a change of venue to a district where the case might have originally been brought if such a transfer would be convenient to parties and witnesses and would serve the interests of justice. A federal court in Hawaii engaged in a balancing test to determine whether a plaintiff could successfully transfer venue in Reyes v. Schuttenberg.

Lidinila Reyes sued her cousin, sister and niece for libel and slander in Hawaii. Reyes’ cousin lives in New York, and her sister and niece live in Hawaii. Reyes lived with her sister in Hawaii from 2007 until 2012, when Reyes moved to Nevada. During the years Reyes lived in Hawaii, defendants allegedly made defamatory statements to relatives and acquaintances outside of Hawaii which Reyes contends injured her relationships with her children and other relatives and harmed her professional reputation, livelihood, and health. Reyes asserts that defendants delivered much of the defamatory matter to her daughter in Nevada via telephone, Facebook, email and in person. Comments also were allegedly communicated to other parties in Nevada as well as to parties in California and North Carolina.

Reyes asserts that when she learned of defendants’ actions, she moved out of her sister’s house and suffered emotional and physical setbacks to her already fragile health. Due to health concerns, Reyes could not travel to her home in Nevada, so she filed the lawsuit in Hawaii. Three months after filing in Hawaii, the court denied Reyes’ Motion to Transfer Venue to Nevada but did so without prejudice and granted Reyes leave to re-file a Motion to Transfer Venue should facts change. Two months later, Reyes renewed her Motion to Transfer Venue.

September 3, 2013

Fourth Circuit Asks Virginia Supreme Court to Clarify Business Conspiracy Statute

by Lee E. Berlik

Sometimes a court must decide a matter that turns on the law of another jurisdiction. If the other jurisdiction’s law is unclear, the deciding court can make a formal request to its sister court asking that court to clarify an issue. The Fourth Circuit recently invoked this procedure and certified two questions to the Virginia Supreme Court: one involving application of Virginia’s business conspiracy statute and another regarding the statute of limitations applicable to tortious interference claims.

James Dunlap operated two AAMCO Transmission franchises for over thirty years. When an asset-management company that owned a large share of AAMCO competitor Cottman Transmission Systems purchased AAMCO, Dunlap found his franchises on the chopping block as part of a plan to eliminate overlap among the businesses by converting Cottman franchises to AAMCOs and closing some franchises. Dunlap claimed that AAMCO attempted to terminate his franchises for minor violations as a pretext to force him out of business. Dunlap settled his dispute with AAMCO and was allowed to continue operations. Dunlap then brought an action against Cottman and new AAMCO principal Todd Leff alleging a conspiracy to force him out of business. The complaint, filed in Chesapeake Circuit Court and later removed to federal court, raised claims for violation of Virginia’s business conspiracy statute, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with business expectancy.

At one time, established case law indicated that conspiring to procure a breach of contract was actionable under Virginia’s business conspiracy statute. However, the Virginia Supreme Court shifted away from that approach in Station #2 v. Lynch, 280 Va. 166 (2010) where it held that an independent duty arising outside the contract is required to establish a conspiracy claim. Relying on Station #2, the district court dismissed Dunlap’s conspiracy claim because he did not allege a valid “unlawful act” as a predicate for the conspiracy. Rather, all of the allegedly breached duties and damages involved arose out of contractual obligations.

August 23, 2013

Virginia Law Firm Wins Dismissal of Negligent Hiring and Retention Claim

by Lee E. Berlik

Earlier this month, Judge Hilton of the Eastern District of Virginia tossed claims against Tysons Law Group, Vienna Law Group, and affiliated attorneys for “vicarious liability” and “negligent hiring, retention and supervision.” Virginia does not recognize an independent cause of action for vicarious liability or negligent supervision. While it does recognize negligent hiring and negligent retention as actionable torts, a plaintiff cannot pursue such claims without alleging a physical injury. The plaintiff in this particular case failed to do that, so the claims were dismissed.

The plaintiff hired Vienna Law Group for immigration related services. Michael Oveysi worked for Vienna Law Group, supervised by Ronald Coleman. According to the plaintiff’s contentions, Oveysi advised him to transfer investment funds and legal fees totaling $566,000 to a bank account that Oveysi controlled. Oveysi, he claims, then made off with the money. The complaint alleges that Oveysi was not subjected to a background investigation prior to his employment and that a background check would have revealed Oveysi’s financial problems. That plaintiff argued that it was negligent to allow Oveysi to work with clients and their money under these circumstances. The defendants moved to dismiss.

In Virginia, vicarious liability is a theory of liability rather than a separate cause of action. The court noted that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits rather than to multiply the causes of action. Here, the theory of vicarious liability was addressed in another claim. Accordingly, the court found the separate claim for vicarious liability was improper and dismissed it.

August 19, 2013

Personal Guarantors Don’t Have Many Ways to Avoid Payment Obligation

by Lee E. Berlik

Those who personally guarantee repayment of a loan need to understand that a personal guarantee means what it says: if the primary obligor fails to pay, expect the noteholder to come after you. In City National Bank v. Tress (from the Western District of Virginia), the court considered various defenses raised by the guarantor and rejected them all, granting summary judgment to the bank.

Imperial Capital Bank loaned $3.2 million to Roanoke Holdings, LLC. Moishe Tress and Yehuda Dachs signed a promissory note on behalf of Roanoke Holdings and personally guaranteed the loan. Roanoke Holdings defaulted on the loan and Tress and Dachs failed to make payments as personal guarantors. Imperial Capital went into receivership, however, and the receiver sold the note and guaranty to City National Bank. City National sued the guarantors and promptly moved for summary judgment. The summary judgment motion against Dachs was unopposed and granted. Tress opposed the motion and sought summary judgment himself.

Under Virginia law, a guaranty is a contract in which a guarantor agrees to be answerable for the debt of another in case of that person’s failure to pay. To recover on a guaranty, a party must show (1) the existence and ownership of the guaranty contract; (2) the terms of the primary obligation; (3) default; (4) and nonpayment of the amount due from the guarantor.

The VirginiaBusiness Litigation Blog