|
|
|
Back Pay Award Reduced Based on Laches in Class Action
Opinions |
2012/03/01 10:20
|
The Indiana Supreme Court recently decided what could prove to be a landmark decision on the doctrine of laches in Richmond State Hospital v. Brattain, Cause No. 49S02-1106-CV-327. If you are dealing with a case involving laches, this decision is a must read.
In this class action, employees who worked in "state institutions" claimed that the State had breached its contractual duty to provide equal pay for equal work by requiring that they work 40 hours per week for the same pay as employees in "state offices" who were only required to work 37.5 hours per week. The trial court found in favor of the employees and awarded 20 years of back pay, amounting to $42,422,788. The Court of Appeals reduced that award substantially by limiting back pay to a few months for merit employees but for non-merit employees, affirmed a recovery for 20 years of damages or about $18.7 million.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and then failed to reach a majority on numerous issues, dividing 2-2. Justice Sullivan did not participate, presumably because he served as State Budget Director during the period in dispute. As a result of the 2-2 split, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals on the merit employees' claims. As to the non-merit employees, the Supreme Court was able to reach a consensus, largely in favor of the State's laches defense.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/Back-Pay-Award-Reduced-Based-on-Laches-in-Class-Action
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
House acts against high court on eminent domain
Court News |
2012/02/29 09:41
|
The House sought Tuesday to undercut a 2005 Supreme Court ruling that gives state and local governments eminent domain authority to seize private property for economic development projects.
Sponsors of the bill, which passed by a voice vote, said it was needed because the 5-4 high court ruling skewed constitutional intentions that eminent domain apply only to land for public use projects.
That ruling, said bill cosponsor Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., justified "the government's taking of private property and giving it to a private business for use in the interest of creating a more lucrative tax base." As a result, he said, the "government's power of eminent domain has become almost limitless, providing citizens with few means to protect their property."
His legislation would withhold for two years all federal development aid to states or locales that take private property for economic development. It also bars the federal government from using eminent domain for economic development purposes and gives private property owners the right to take legal action if provisions of the legislation are violated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Criminal Lawyers - Sydney criminal defence lawyers
Law Firm News |
2012/02/28 10:21
|
Sydney Criminal Lawyers are a team of professional, experienced and highly respected specialist criminal and traffic defence lawyers. With two offices located in Sydney's Downing Centre Courts, our team of attorneys consistently achieve outstanding results in different criminal cases throughout the NSW area. We are the only criminal law firm to offer an "Accredited Specialist Guarantee" which means we will represent you on all important court days by the very best criminal or traffic lawyer in our firm. Additionally, we offer a great fixed fee-no hidden costs for our clients who are on a budget. Sydney Criminal Lawyers is the only accredited criminal law firm to offer these fixed fees for a wide range of criminal law services. Our results speak for themselves and we are the legal experts here to defend for your freedom to get you back on the road and on with your life as soon as possible.
At Sydney Criminal Lawyers, their attorneys have extensive experience in a wide range of criminal cases. With their comprehensive knowledge of drink driving, drug, and assault laws, their ability to defend their clients and win criminal cases have shown a proven track record. They care and understand how important a clean record is and will fight for their clients to secure favorable results. We have a winning attitude that will help ease your stresses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Legal Focuses |
2012/02/28 10:21
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of the securities of TranS1 Inc. between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
TranS1 is a medical device company that designs, develops and markets products that implement its proprietary surgical approach to treat degenerative conditions of the spine affecting the lower lumbar region. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company and certain of its executive officers misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations and financial performance, including that: (i) the Company was not in compliance with federal healthcare fraud and false claim statutes; (ii) the Company engaged in improper reimbursement practices; (iii) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (iv), as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased TranS1 securities between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until March 26, 2012, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof of a Negative Not Required for Summary Judgment
Attorney News |
2012/02/27 10:20
|
The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a decision that may have a large impact on summary judgment practice in Indiana. In Commr. of the Indiana Dept. of Ins. v. Black, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the Court essentially held that Indiana will apply the standard set forth in Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), at least in some circumstances.
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56." Although no such "opportunity" was given, the court found there was "no prejudice" and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
The court noted that the Commissioner's position on the motion required him to prove a negative?-that there was no settlement with Harris for $250,000. In Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the view that a party seeking summary judgment could simply point to the opponent’s burden of proof at trial and prevail unless the non-movant produced evidence supporting its claim or defense. This ruling has for many years been perceived as being at odds with Celotex, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reached a different conclusion under the federal rules. In 2000, Justice Boehm, in dissenting from a denial of transfer in Lenhart Tool & Die, Inc. v. Lumpe, 722 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 2000), expressed the view that a party who puts forward evidence that a non-movant will be unable to present evidence to prove an essential element of its claim or defense, should be entitled to summary judgment if the non-movant fails to present such evidence. In Black, the Court of Appeals held: "Today, we accept Justice Boehm's views on this subject expressed in his dissent."
Having adopted this new standard, however, the Court of Appeals found that in this case, based on the unauthenticated check and the settlement correspondence, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a $250,000 settlement on Black’s claim against Harris had been accomplished. So, the Commissioner was not entitled to summary judgment. Black was also not entitled to a judgment on his claim since it was not clear that the required settlement with Harris for $250,000 had been consummated.
The Court held that the Commissioner is entitled to discovery of the settlement agreement and that the confidentiality term in the settlement agreement would not trump the Commissioner's right to such discovery. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Investment Fraud Litigation |
|
|
|
|
Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws. Securities Arbitration. Generally speaking, securities fraud consists of deceptive practices in the stock and commodity markets, and occurs when investors are enticed to part with their money based on untrue statements.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Securities Law News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case. | Affordable Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo |
|
Legal News RSS Feed
