Pretrial Practice and Civil Procedure Category Archives — Page 9 of 10 — The Virginia Business Litigation Blog Published by Virginia and Washington, D.C. Litigation & Appeals Attorney

September 12, 2011

Validity of Restrictive Covenants Turns on Facts of Each Case

Virginia courts will not necessarily rule on the enforceability of a restrictive covenant in an employment agreement without first examining the facts. In a recent federal-court decision from Roanoke, Judge Wilson denied a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a case involving an alleged assignment of patent rights in violation of various contractual restrictions, finding that the factual record wasn’t sufficiently developed to permit a ruling.

Travis Mickle, President of KemPharm, Inc., a small early-phase biopharmaceutical company, was working as a senior research scientist for Lotus Biochemical Corporation (which became New River Pharmaceuticals (“NRP”)) in 2001. At that time, he entered into an employment agreement with Lotus. In 2005, he left the company and entered into a settlement agreement governing various post-employment responsibilities.

Shire LLC, a subsidiary of NRP, sued Mickle for breach of both the original employment agreement and the settlement agreement. Shire pointed to paragraphs in the employment agreement that make all discoveries or inventions made by Mickle the property of the company; that prohibit Mickle from disclosing company confidential information for his own benefit; and that require that all patents and other intellectual property developed by Mickle be assigned to the company.

August 8, 2011

D.C. Law Firm Loses Motion to Reconsider Dismissal of D.J. Action

by Lee E. Berlik

In a case that turns on a law firm’s ethical obligations to avoid conflicts of interest, a large D.C. law firm has once again been procedurally rebuffed in its effort to have a federal judge in the District of Columbia declare that it has not violated any ethics rules in a high-profile environmental case.

Patton Boggs, a major D.C. firm, represents various parties in Ecuador that are involved in high-stakes environmental litigation against Chevron. A lobbying subsidiary of Patton Boggs, the Breaux Lott Leadership Group, has done work on behalf of Chevron on similar issues. Gibson Dunn, the law firm representing Chevron, is taking the position that Patton Boggs has a conflict of interest and has tried to have Patton Boggs removed from the case.

Patton Boggs moved in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory ruling that it does not have such a conflict. Last April, however, U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy dismissed this case, finding that the courts that are actually hearing the environmental cases against Chevron are best equipped to handle that issue. Judge Kennedy also ruled that Patton Boggs could not amend its complaint to allege that Chevron and Gibson Dunn had tortiously interfered with its contract with the Ecuadorian plaintiffs and had engaged in a civil conspiracy, since Patton Boggs had not alleged facts suggesting that they had caused any actual breach of the contract.

August 1, 2011

Virginia Court Pierces Corporate Veil But Declines to “Reverse Pierce”

by Lee E. Berlik

Courts don’t often grant requests to “pierce the corporate veil” – in other words, to disregard the existence of a corporation and to hold a shareholder personally liable for the corporation’s debts – but in a recent Virginia case, a judge did just that, entering a personal judgment against a corporation’s sole shareholder for nearly $140,000. His mistake? Failing to observe corporate formalities, and arranging for the corporation to enter into a contract while grossly undercapitalized.

Advance Technologies, Inc., had been hired as a sub-subcontractor by subcontractor ACE Electric Company on a boiler maintenance project for the University of Richmond. ACE, however, soon terminated Advance from the project, and Advance went out of business. In December 2009, a default judgment was entered against Advance for more than $137,500. ACE was unable to recover any of this money from Advance, so it sued Erik Butler, the sole shareholder, officer, and director of Advance, in an attempt to pierce the corporate veil and recover funds from Butler’s personal assets to satisfy the judgment. ACE’s lawyers also invoked a “reverse piercing” theory by seeking to impose liability against Butler’s wife, DeAnne Butler, and from another corporation, ADVTEC, Inc., of which she was the sole officer, shareholder, and director. ACE claimed that ADVTEC was created by DeAnne Butler in a fraudulent attempt to avoid the debts incurred by Advance.

In an opinion handed down on April 29, 2011, Judge Gary A. Hicks of the Circuit Court of Henrico County wrote that piercing the veil and permitting a plaintiff to recover from the personal assets of a shareholder is “an extraordinary remedy that is infrequently granted.” The judge pointed out that there are generally sound legal and economic reasons for granting immunity to shareholders. However, the judge noted, exceptions do exist. In this case, the judge wrote, the evidence was “sufficient to pierce the corporate veil as to Erik Butler.” The court found that Butler failed to adhere to corporate formalities (such as conducting annual meetings and maintaining separate books for the corporation), and that when Advance entered into the contract with ACE, Advance was “grossly undercapitalized.” It had only between $10,000 and $15,000 in the bank, and owed back taxes both to the IRS and to Virginia authorities. Under these circumstances, Judge Hicks wrote, it would be a “profound injustice” not to permit ACE to go after Erik Butler’s personal assets to satisfy the default judgment.

May 7, 2011

ADA Plaintiff Perpetrates Fraud on Court, Sees Claim Stricken

by Lee E. Berlik

In a memorandum opinion dated April 27, 2011, United States District Judge T.S. Ellis, who sits in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia, taught plaintiff Stephanie Holmes that it was not a good idea to change her story multiple times during her deposition. Finding that she had “perpetrated a fraud on the court,” Judge Ellis affirmed the magistrate judge’s recommendation to strike Holmes’s claim for compensatory damages for pain and suffering.

Holmes, who had worked as a stocker at a Wal-mart in Alexandria, Virginia, for four years, filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that Walmart had failed to make reasonable accommodations for her hearing impairment. She alleged that Walmart had refused to provide her with an interpreter and with comprehensive notes of meetings and instructions, all of which she needed to perform her job properly. She sought compensation for pecuniary losses, an injunction, punitive damages, and back pay.

The EEOC filed suit on Holmes’s behalf. During Holmes’s deposition in 2010, Walmart’s attorneys asked her about whether she had received any treatment from a mental health provider for emotional distress caused by her employment at Walmart. First, she said, “I don’t need therapy, and I don’t see doctors.” Then she said she saw a therapist just once in 2007. She later changed her story again and said she saw one doctor three times a week from March 2004 through February 2005. Finally, at the end of her deposition, she acknowledged that she had received therapy for anxiety and depression in a 13-year period from 1994 to 2007 and that some of the treatment related to her work at Walmart.

April 11, 2011

Judge Alper Grants Limited Discovery to Lacoste in Counterfeiting Case

by Lee E. Berlik

Lacoste Alligator, S.A., which sells tennis shirts and other apparel with the distinctive green crocodile logo in high-end stores like Nordstrom and Saks Fifth Avenue, will get a chance to find out, through discovery in a lawsuit, which of its distributors (if any) have been selling its products to Costco and other warehouse stores without its express permission, in violation of its trademark rights and in breach of contract.

Lacoste, a Swiss company, is attempting to prevent its clothing from being sold in big-box and other unauthorized retail locations. The first problem facing Lacoste, however, was that although it believed that some distributor was making sales to those stores, it didn’t know who it was. Accordingly, it filed a “John Doe” complaint in Arlington County Circuit Court on trademark-infringement, breach of contract, and other grounds, hoping to use discovery in the case to ferret out the identity of the distributor responsible for the unauthorized sales. After filing the “John Doe” suit, Lacoste promptly served a subpoena on Costco Wholesale Corp., trying to ascertain the source from which it was receiving Lacoste products for resale in its stores. Costco objected to handing over any documents, and Lacoste filed a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena.

Judge Joanne F. Alper overruled most of Costco’s objections and held that Lacoste was entitled to the discovery subject to the entry of an appropriate protective order to prevent misuse of the information.

March 16, 2011

Summary Judgment Granted in Breach of Contract Action

by Lee E. Berlik

A U.S. district judge in Virginia has ruled that a restaurant chain operator is liable for breach of contract and is obligated to pay a franchise consulting company for sales and marketing services that the consultant performed for the chain under the contract between the two companies. Rejecting the contract defenses of lack of standing, fraudulent inducement, lack of specificity, lack of mutuality, and unconscionability, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis, III, of the Eastern District of Virginia, granted summary judgment in favor of the consultant.

The case arose from a 2008 contract between Freshii Development, LLC, which owns a chain of healthy fast-food restaurants, and Fransmart, LLC, an Alexandria, Va.-based company that agreed, in exchange for a percentage of franchise fees and revenues, to help Freshii expand by finding appropriate franchisees for its restaurants. In early 2010, Fransmart restructured its business and set up a new company to which it assigned its contracts and transferred its assets and liabilities. Freshii then stopped paying Fransmart under the contract, and Fransmart sued for breach. Freshii asserted five defenses to the lawsuit, all of which Judge Ellis rejected.

Freshii first argued that Fransmart lacked standing because the 2008 agreement was a personal services contract and therefore not assignable to a separate entity (such as the “new Fransmart”) without Freshii’s consent. Judge Ellis rejected this defense, noting that many aspects of the agreement led to the conclusion that it was not a personal services contract. For example, the agreement was between two corporate entities, it was for a duration of ten years, and it did not identify any individual as being material to performance. In any event, the judge wrote, it was not necessary to reach that issue because the contract contained a “successors and assigns” clause, stating that “the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and to their successors and assigns.” This language, the court found, demonstrated that the parties intended the agreement to be assignable to a successor entity like the new Fransmart.

January 22, 2011

Managing Agents Must Travel to Virginia for Depositions

by Lee E. Berlik

During discovery, an examining party has the power to compel the deposition of a corporate defendant’s “managing agents.” If the plaintiff’s lawyer designates an individual to testify who is not an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporate defendant, the lawyer must resort to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which governs subpoenas issued to third parties. For that reason, there is often a lot of disagreement among litigants regarding whether a particular individual qualifies as a managing agent of the corporation. Another common point of contention is whether foreign managing agents must come to Virginia for their depositions.

In DuPont v. Kolon Industries, a trade secrets case involving alleged misappropriation of confidential commercial information relating to Kevlar, Judge Payne of the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division) utilized a four-factor test to determine whether employees could be classified as “managing agents,” adopting a test laid out in a 1996 Maryland case. Judge Payne wrote that courts faced with the issue should consider:

the discretionary authority that the corporation vests in the employee;

March 15, 2010

Virginia Court Permits “Discriminatory Discipline” Claim to Go Forward

by Lee E. Berlik

To survive the early stages of litigation in federal court, you need to ensure your complaint not only alleges facts that, if proven true, would support a legal cause of action, but that present a plausible claim for relief. While you are far more likely to win your case at trial if you are represented by an attorney, one of the few situations in which your task may be easier without a lawyer is surviving an initial motion to dismiss. This is because the United States Supreme Court has held expressly that a “pro se” plaintiff (i.e., a litigant not represented by a lawyer) must be held to less stringent standards than those who have legal representation and are more familiar with the rules of formal pleadings.

Michael Bogan is representing himself in a Title VII employment-discrimination action against The Roomstore in Richmond, Virginia. Judge Henry E. Hudson recently denied The Roomstore’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that Mr. Bogan alleged “scant but marginally sufficient” factual allegations to support a claim for discriminatory discipline, an employment practice prohibited by federal employment laws. Had an attorney drafted the complaint, the result might have been different.

Mr. Bogan, an African-American, alleges that his Caucasian supervisor at The Roomstore demanded that he undergo a drug test even though a similarly situated white employee was not required to submit to the test. He claimed the white employee was involved in illegal activity and had missed several days of work. The complaint alleges that The Roomstore terminated his employment for refusing to submit to the test.

December 1, 2009

Big Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

by Lee E. Berlik

Windows 7 was not my idea. But the new amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? Maybe! A few years ago I received a stern reprimand from a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia for supposedly filing a brief past the 5-day deadline. I respectfully explained to the court that, under the Rules then in effect, because weekend days are not counted in time periods of less than 11 days, and because additional days are added to the deadline when papers are served by facsimile, and because if a deadline expires on a Saturday then the deadline is extended to the following Monday–or Tuesday if Monday happens to be a national holiday–then a “5-day deadline” can actually allow up to 147 days! The judge was not impressed. But I was right (up to a point), so now the Rules have been amended to prevent this sort of nonsense.

Effective today, “days” means days. For lawyers who practice in federal court, this is a radical concept. Perhaps even more radical, defendants now have 21 days in which to respond to a lawsuit rather than merely 20. I pity those about to take the bar exam. In any event, here is a summary of what are, in my view, the most significant changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

Rule 6. Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

November 17, 2009

Discovery in the Information Age

by Lee E. Berlik

The discovery process, the primary fact-finding tool available to litigants, has always been contentious. Parties are loathe to hand over potentially embarrassing or incriminating documents, and the costs involved can be staggering. The information age has only served to make things more complicated. As the Northern District of Illinois observed in the 2002 case of Byers v. Illinois State Police, “[m]any informal messages that were previously relayed by telephone or at the water cooler are now sent via e-mail.” Now that so many casual conversations are documented in e-mail and are, therefore, potentially subject to discovery, the discovery costs in the typical case have skyrocketed . Two recent United States District Court Cases, one out of Minnesota, Kay Beer Distributing, Inc. v. Energy Brands, Inc., and the other out of Florida, Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc., provide a window into just how daunting electronic discovery can be, how judges are adapting traditional discovery rules to deal with these new problems, and how parties can do their part to avoid potential problems.

Information is generally discoverable if it is non-privileged and either directly relevant to a party’s claim or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence that is directly relevant. In the Kay Beer case, Kay alleged that an oral contract gave it the exclusive right of distribution for Energy Brands’ products. Energy Brands claimed that by its understanding of the agreement, Kay’s distribution rights were limited. This was essentially a run-of-the-mill contract dispute. What made the case unique, however, was the plaintiff’s demand that the defendant hand over five DVDs containing nearly 13 gigabytes (between 650,000 and 975,000 pages) of e-mails and other documents. Each of the documents had been identified as referencing “Kay Beer”, “Kay Distributing”, or simply “Kay” by a keyword search of Energy Brands’ archives. Kay Beer argued that the documents might contain discoverable evidence showing that Energy Brands originally shared Kay’s understanding of their agreement.

The court’s approach to the discovery contest was to weigh Kay Beer’s interest in obtaining the documents against the burden Energy Brands would experience in turning them over. The court found that just because a document references a party does not support the conclusion that it contains relevant evidence. It further reasoned that in contract litigation, the only relevant statements are those made between the representatives of the companies involved; statements made by lower-level employees not empowered to speak for the company are not relevant to the official understanding of the contract. The court concluded that Kay Beer’s interest in the documents was relatively minor.