The Virginia Business Litigation Blog

November 26, 2012

Joinder of Involuntary Plaintiff Permitted Only “In a Proper Case”

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(2) permits courts to join necessary parties as involuntary plaintiffs “in a proper case.” Whatever a “proper case” might look like for purposes of Rule 19(a) joinder, Judge James P. Jones of the Western District of Virginia recently found that the case before him– Childress v. UBS Financial Services–did not qualify.

Gary Childress established an IRA, naming Terry Lee Dodson, his wife, as the account’s beneficiary. UBS Financial Services managed the account. The couple divorced and when Childress died six years later, Dodson sued UBS in state court seeking to be declared the beneficiary. Edward Childress, the estate administrator, then sued UBS in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Childress argued the divorce revoked, as a matter of law, the original beneficiary designation of Dodson. UBS moved to join Dodson as a necessary party plaintiff.

The Federal Rules require a court to join as a “necessary party” anyone who claims an interest in the action’s subject matter and whose absence from the suit could hurt that person’s ability to protect the interest or potentially result in another party being subjected to multiple or inconsistent obligations. The person has to be “subject to service of process” and the joinder cannot destroy the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

November 19, 2012

Can I Sue My Boss for Wrongful Termination?

by Lee E. Berlik

Until recently, the answer to this question has not been clear. After all, it’s the employer that does the hiring and firing, not necessarily the individual managers and supervisors. Employment defense lawyers have argued that by definition, a supervisor cannot be liable for wrongful termination when the supervisor is not the one effecting the termination. But on November 1, 2012, the Supreme Court of Virginia clarified that Virginia law does, in fact, recognize a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy against a supervisor who was not the plaintiff’s actual employer but who participated in the wrongful firing and who was responsible for the violation of Virginia public policy. The case is Angela VanBuren v. Stephen A. Grubb.

VanBuren was a nurse at Virginia Highlands Orthopedic Spine Center when (according to her allegations) she was sexually harassed by her supervisor, Virginia Highlands’ owner Dr. Stephen Grubb. The harassment escalated and resulted in Grubb firing VanBuren when she rejected his advances and told him she planned to stay with her husband. VanBuren sued both Dr. Grubb and Virginia Highlands in federal court for wrongful discharge. The district court granted Dr. Grubb’s motion to dismiss, finding that the Supreme Court of Virginia would most likely hold that wrongful discharge claims are only recognized against the employer and not against supervisors in their individual capacity. VanBuren appealed to the Fourth Circuit, and that court certified the question to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Although Virginia strongly adheres to the employment-at-will doctrine, it does recognize an exception when a discharge violates public policy. The exception is narrow and not every policy violation will give rise to a wrongful discharge claim. Discharge based on the employee’s refusal to engage in a criminal act is one of the narrow exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine, and the court found that VanBuren’s claim fell within this exception (adultery and “open and gross lewdness and lasciviousness” are crimes in Virginia).

November 10, 2012

Expert Witness Excluded From Bernsen Case, Settlement Reached Days Later

by Lee E. Berlik

Actor Corbin Bernsen has settled his breach-of-contract case against Innovative Legal Marketing, days after a Norfolk magistrate judge granted his motion to exclude the testimony of ILM’s proffered expert witness. The case was seemingly progressing in Bernsen’s favor – he survived ILM’s motion for summary judgment back in August, when the court held that the jury could conceivably find that ILM waived not only the morality clause it contended Bernsen breached, but also the contract’s non-waiver clause. The trial began November 7th and settled the next day.

One week before the trial commenced, the court granted Bernsen’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of ILM’s expert witness, Randy Dinzler, finding that his anticipated testimony amounted to nothing more than an “explanation of common sense principles.”

ILM designated Dinzler, a contract employee for ILM, to testify as to how Bernsen’s actions negatively impacted his effectiveness as a spokesperson for ILM. ILM conceded that Dinzler lacked sufficient foundation to testify to any specific impact Bernsen’s actions may have had on ILM’s marketing campaign, but it asserted that he should be permitted to give general opinions about the use and impact of a spokesperson in an advertising campaign and factors by which marketing companies evaluate a spokesperson’s conduct based on his seventeen years of experience in legal marketing. His opinion would be that advertising campaigns use spokespersons to evoke certain reactions from the potential consumer and that negative press coverage of the spokesperson creates an unfavorable impression in the minds of potential consumers.

October 11, 2012

Laffey Matrix and Grissom Table Considered in Reducing Attorneys’ Fees

by Lee E. Berlik

The Laffey Matrix is used as a guideline for reasonable attorney fees in the Washington-Baltimore area. An updated version is available that adjusts the rates for the high cost of living. Virginia courts are not bound by the Laffey Matrix, but the Fourth Circuit has indicated that the Laffey matrix is a “useful starting point to determine fees.” The Laffey Matrix was further modified in Grissom v. Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313, 323 (4th Cir. 2008), where it was adjusted specifically for Northern Virginia and presented in a form that has come to be known as the Grissom Table. In a recent federal-court decision, Judge Cacheris considered all three guidelines prior to awarding the plaintiff $75,832.73 of the $131,598.25 sought.

In Ebersole v. Kline-Perry (discussed earlier here in connection with the court’s slashing of the jury’s award of punitive damages), the court began its analysis by determining the “lodestar amount” – the product of a reasonable fee and a reasonable hourly rate. Federal courts sitting in Virginia consider twelve “Johnson/Kimbrell” factors for guidance in determining reasonableness, which Judge Cacheris noted encompass the factors normally relied upon by Virginia state courts in awarding fees in business-conspiracy cases.

Those factors are: (1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney’s opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work; (6) the attorney’s expectations at the outset of the litigation; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client; and (12) attorneys’ fees awards in similar cases.

October 8, 2012

Non-Compete Held Enforceable, Lost Profits Sufficiently Proven

by Lee E. Berlik

The Supreme Court of Virginia recently heard appeals in Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc. v. GP Consulting, LLC, a Fairfax non-compete case previously covered by this blog. The case involved a dispute between a government contractor, Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc. (PSS) and its subcontractor, GP Consulting, LLC (GP). GP terminated its contract with PSS and entered into a contract with a PSS competitor. PSS sued GP alleging breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference with contract. The trial court awarded PSS compensatory damages based on its finding that GP breached the non-compete clause in the parties’ contract and that PSS was entitled to recover its lost profits, which it had proven with reasonable certainty. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed.

Contracts that limit competition are not favored in Virginia and are enforceable only if narrowly drawn to protect an employer’s legitimate business interest, not unduly burdensome on an employee’s ability to earn a living and not against public policy. The court considers the function, geographic scope, and duration of the restriction in evaluating these factors.

Here, the court found that the function of the non-compete clause was narrowly drawn as it was limited to work in support of a particular program run under the auspices of a particular government agency and limited to the same or similar type of Money Stream.jpg information technology support offered by PSS. Likewise, the twelve month duration of the non-compete was narrowly drawn in the court’s view. The court found that the lack of a specific geographic limitation was not fatal to the non-compete clause because it was so narrowly drawn to this particular project and the handful of companies in direct competition with PSS. Accordingly, the court found that the clause was enforceable.

October 5, 2012

Misrepresentation of Present Intent to Perform Contract

by Lee E. Berlik

In Virginia, a fraud claim must state (1) a false representation, (2) of a material fact, (3) made intentionally and knowingly, (4) with intent to mislead, (5) reliance by the party misled, and (6) resulting damage to the party misled. Fraud claims cannot be based on unfulfilled promises or statements regarding future events. Promises to perform future acts are not legal representations and failure to perform them doesn’t change that fact. But if a defendant, at the time of making that promise, had no intention of carrying it out, that promise is considered a misrepresentation of present fact that can form the basis for a fraud claim. As demonstrated by the recent case of Cyberlock Consulting v. Information Experts, however, mere failure to perform is not evidence of the defendant’s lack of intent at the time the contract was formed.

Information Experts (IE) and Cyberlock Consulting had a history of working together. As they were completing the work on a contract with OPM, they learned the agency would be seeking bids for a similar new project. So they entered into a teaming arrangement to land the new prime contract. The teaming agreement called for IE to give Cyberlock 49% of the work under a fixed price subcontracting agreement. Cyberlock would submit cost and price data to support IE’s pricing strategy planning and the parties would use reasonable efforts to negotiate a subcontract. Ultimately, IE was awarded the prime contract but the parties were unable to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract. Cyberlock sued IE, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment. IE moved to dismiss the fraud claim.

Cyberlock claimed that, when they formed the teaming arrangement, IE had no intention of executing a subcontract. Instead, it claimed, IE planned to push Cyberlock out and hire its employees so it could perform the contract itself.

September 26, 2012

Virginia Right to Nonsuit Unaffected by Federal Court Dismissal

by Lee E. Berlik

Dr. Adel S. Kebaish filed a defamation case in Fairfax County Circuit Court against INOVA Health Care Services and several doctors alleging defamation, breach of contract, tortious interference, conspiracy, wrongful termination and unjust enrichment. Defendants removed the case to federal court, where Dr. Kebaish filed an amended complaint. He later filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and then re-filed the case in Fairfax. The case proceeded to a jury trial, and on the second day of the trial Dr. Kebaish invoked the Virginia rule allowing plaintiffs to take one voluntary nonsuit as a matter of right. INOVA objected, arguing that because Dr. Kebaish had taken a voluntary dismissal in federal court, he had effectively already taken a nonsuit. The trial court disagreed and allowed Dr. Kebaish to nonsuit. INOVA appealed.

On appeal, the court was guided by well-settled principles of statutory review which bind courts to the plain meaning of statutory language and require them to apply the expressed legislative intent. Virginia’s nonsuit statute was first enacted in 1789 and applied only to actions at law tried by a jury. The statute was amended in 1932 and again in 1954, the later amendment providing for a voluntary dismissal as a matter of right only up to the time the suit had been submitted for decision at law or in equity. Courts have recognized that the 1954 amendment intended the term “nonsuit” to be used in a comprehensive sense whether at law or in equity.

The current nonsuit statute allows a plaintiff to take one nonsuit as a matter of right before a motion to strike the evidence has been sustained, before the jury retires, or before the action has been submitted to the court for decision. Va. Code § 8.01-380(B). In federal court, a plaintiff may take a voluntary dismissal as a matter of right before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

September 17, 2012

Attorneys’ Eyes Only Expert Reports Sealed From Public Scrutiny

by Lee E. Berlik

The law presumes that the public should have access to judicial records. This presumption stems from both common law and First Amendment concerns and may be abrogated only in unusual circumstances. Fourth Circuit case law indicates that a district court can seal court documents if competing interests outweigh the public’s right to access.

When faced with a request to seal documents, a court must first determine the source of the right to access in order to weigh the competing interests. The court must then (1) give notice of the request to seal and allow interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object; (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the documents; and (3) provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents. A local rule in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia requires the party moving to seal documents to provide (1) a non-confidential description of the documents to be sealed; (2) a statement as to why sealing is necessary; (3) references to governing case law; and (4) a statement as to the period of time the party seeks to have the matter sealed and as to how the matter is to be handled upon unsealing.

In a recent case in the Eastern District of Virginia, East West, LLC v. Rahman, the plaintiff sought to seal four exhibits relating to the parties’ expert reports. The reports were designated “Attorney’s Eyes Only” under a confidentiality order entered during discovery that allowed the parties to so designate documents that contained highly sensitive business or personal information, the disclosure of which might cause significant harm.

September 5, 2012

Trying to Get Someone Fired: A First Amendment Right?

by Lee E. Berlik

It is not an uncommon sentiment to want to “get someone fired” by conveying unflattering and possibly damaging information to another person’s employer. Most litigation attorneys will tell you that such conduct can put you at risk for a claim for tortious interference with the employee’s employment contract or business relationship. The Minnesota Court of Appeals, however, has held that claims for tortious interference based on truthful, non-defamatory statements made to another’s employer may be constitutionally protected, regardless of the speaker’s motivation.

Moore v. Hoff involved certain statements made by John Hoff (a.k.a. “Johnny Northside”) on his blog, “The Adventures of Johnny Northside.” When Hoff learned that former community council director Jerry Moore was working for a University of Minnesota group studying foreclosure issues, Hoff wrote in his blog that Moore had been fired from his position as executive director of a local community council due to misconduct and that court evidence showed Moore had been involved in a high-profile fraudulent mortgage. Hoff’s friend, Donald Allen, then sent an email to the university, linking Moore to someone under indictment for mortgage fraud, accusing him of a questionable deal, and warning the university it could face a “public relations nightmare” by employing Moore. Allen included a link to Hoff’s blog in the email. The University fired Moore immediately.

Moore sued Hoff for defamation, intentional interference with contract, and interference with prospective advantage. Moore was deemed a “limited purpose public figure” because he’d assumed a prominent role in a public controversy as director of the community council and the alleged defamation related to that controversy. A jury found Hoff interfered with Moore’s contract and prospective business advantage and awarded Moore $60,000. But it also found Hoff’s statements were “not false.” Hoff appealed.

August 27, 2012

Virginia Court Allows Corbin Bernsen Lawsuit to Proceed

by Lee E. Berlik

Innovative Legal Marketing, LLC, a Virginia Beach company, provides attorney and law firm marketing through various media. In 2009, the company entered into a spokesperson agreement with actor Corbin Bernsen, one of the stars of the popular television series, L.A. Law. The agreement gave Innovative the right to use Bernsen’s likeness, voice and image to market the company and its clients. Innovative was to pay him $1,000,000 over five years in increments of $200,000 annually under a defined formula.

The parties fulfilled their advertising roles for almost two years with Innovative paying a total of $331,818.12 to the actor. But in June 2011, Bernsen said Innovative’s managing director orally terminated the contract. The company stopped paying Bernsen but, as late as September 2011, continued airing certain Bernsen television commercials and featuring his photographs, recorded messages and video clips on the internet.

Bernsen sued the company for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking the remaining balance, $668,181.88, along with incidental and consequential damages, interest, fees and costs.

The VirginiaBusiness Litigation Blog