West Virginia Business Litigation : West Virginia Business Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Law Office of Jeffrey V. Mehalic : Charleston, Huntington, Parkersburg

You may remember Paul Ratchford, the former president of The Greenbrier, who was terminated in 2007 after less than one year on the job. He filed suit against CSX Corporation, the resort’s then-owner and some individual officers, and alleged several causes of action, including a violation of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act because CSX allegedly failed to pay him his severance of $700,000 and the value of 1,200 shares of CSX stock within 72 hours of his termination, as the statute requires. I wrote about Ratchford's termination and lawsuit in this post.

Last year, the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County granted CSX’s motion to dismiss and denied Ratchford’s motion for partial summary judgment on the grounds that under the Wage Payment and Collection Act, Ratchford’s severance and stock were not “wages” or “fringe benefits” that would entitle Ratchford to treble damages.

Ratchford appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Here are his petition for appeal and CSX’s response in opposition. On October 30, 2008, the Supreme Court refused his petition for appeal 4-0 with Justice Brent Benjamin disqualified.

That left Ratchford’s claims for breach of contract, wrongful discharge, tortious interference with a contractual relationship, intentional infliction of emotional distress, California labor statute violations, and fraud.

Ratchford sued at least two West Virginia residents, which destroyed diversity, but CSX Hotels, Inc.’ s bankruptcy in March created federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334. In April, CSX filed this notice of removal.

Due to CSX Hotels’ sale of The Greenbrier to Jim Justice, the bankruptcy court dismissed CSX’s bankruptcy petition as moot. Ratchford claimed that without the bankruptcy proceeding, the federal court was deprived of jurisdiction to adjudicate his claims.

Although United States District Court Judge Thomas E. Johnston remanded Ratchford’s civil action, his order points out that a remand in these circumstances is not automatic:

Plaintiff [Ratchford] contends that in the absence of a bankruptcy debtor as a party to the action, the Court is “divest[ed]” of jurisdiction to adjudicate the state law claims… This assertion is not necessarily accurate. It is well-established that once a court obtains jurisdiction over a matter, jurisdiction “remains … even if subsequent events eliminate the original basis for federal jurisdiction.” Chapman v. Currie Motors, 65 F.3d 78, 81 (7th Cir. 1995). The Court can continue to exercise jurisdiction over this case, but it does not necessarily follow that it should.

(Emphasis added.)

The Court explained that it had discretion to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ratchford’s remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), abstain from exercising its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), or remand the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b).

The Court determined that remand under § 1452(b) was appropriate because “the equities weight heavily in favor of remand[.]” Among the factors the Court looked at were the relative lengths of time the case had been in state court versus federal court, the fact that all of Ratchford’s claims are grounded in state law, and the fact that the defendants did not oppose the remand.

So remember that just because the original basis for federal jurisdiction disappears, that does not necessarily mean that the court loses jurisdiction. And for a case where the court elected to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction, take a look at former Chief Judge Charles H. Haden, II's opinion in Greiner v. Columbia Transmission Corp., 41 F.Supp.2d 625 (S.D.W.Va. 1999), which Judge Johnston cited in his order.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

United States District Court Chief Judge Joseph R. Goodwin recently ruled in Jones v. Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 601 F.Supp.2d 756 (S.D.W.Va. 2009), on the class counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees and expenses, and his order entered on March 6, 2009 is important for attorneys who prosecute and defend class actions in West Virginia.

Jones was a class action filed by gas well owners who alleged that gas companies cheated them out of their royalties. Earlier this year, the parties agreed to a settlement creating a common fund of between $40 and $50 million and awarding attorney’s fees not to exceed 25% of the total settlement. Class counsel sought an award of attorney’s fees equal to 25% of the settlement, which they estimated at $50 million, plus reimbursement of $91,883.50 in expenses and a $25,000 incentive award for each of the three named class representatives. Here is the settlement website.

In considering the motion, Judge Goodwin noted initially that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has not stated a preference between the “lodestar” method and the “percentage of fund” method, so he had complete discretion to determine how to compensate class counsel. He also discussed how each method is applied and its relative advantages and disadvantages. 

He found that the percentage method was appropriate and would also apply the lodestar crosscheck as “an element of objectivity.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Apparently, I could go only one day without another post related to the Supreme Court's decision in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company. But the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia yesterday resolved the question of who will replace Chief Justice Brent Benjamin when the Court hears the appeal in the fall.

In an administrative order entered yesterday by Justice Robin Jean Davis, acting as chief due to Chief Justice Benjamin's recusal, she appointed Senior Status Judge James O. Holliday, who retired from the Circuit Court of Putnam County, as Benjamin's replacement. Paul Nyden reviews Judge Holliday's prior service on the Supreme Court in the Charleston Gazette. 

Justice Davis entered a second administrative order yesterday that terminated the service of Hampshire County Circuit Court Judge Donald H. Cookman and Marion County Circuit Judge Fred L. Fox, II, who had been appointed to replace former Justices Elliott E. "Spike" Maynard and Larry V. Starcher, respectively, when the Court heard the appeal for the second time. Justices Maynard and Starcher are no longer on the Court.

According to Rule 45 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court will issue its mandate 25 days after entry of the judgment, in case any party files a petition for rehearing. Assuming no petition is filed, the mandate will issue on July 3.

The appeal will be heard for the third time during the Supreme Court of Appeals' Fall Term, which begins on September 2. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Supreme Court’s decision in Massey v. A. T. Massey Coal Company has occupied my attention so far this week, but today I want to look at a decision issued earlier this month by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Eric Thompson and his then-fiancé, Miriam Regalado, worked together at North American Stainless. Regalado filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that the company had discriminated against her because of her gender. A few months later, the company terminated Thompson allegedly for performance-based reasons, although he alleged that it was in retaliation for Regalado‘s EEOC charge.  In other words, if the company couldn’t terminate her, it would terminate him to get back at her.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits retaliation against employees where the employee has opposed any practice that is an unlawful employment practice (such as gender discrimination) or has testified, assisted in or participated in an investigation, proceeding or hearing.

Thompson filed suit, and the district court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment and found that he did not state a claim under either Title VII’s anti-discrimination provision or its anti-retaliation provision.

He appealed, and last year, a three-judge panel from the Sixth Circuit held 2-1 that Title VII prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who are not directly involved in protected activity, but who are so closely related to or associated with those who are directly involved that it is clear that the protected activity motivated the employer’s action. Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 520 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2008).

North American Stainless petitioned the Sixth Circuit for rehearing en banc, and the court granted the petition and vacated the panel’s decision.   

Following its en banc reconsideration, the court held 10-6 in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP¸ 2009 WL 1563443 (6th  Cir. 2009), that § 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not create a cause of action for third-party retaliation for persons who have not personally engaged in protected activity. Only those persons who have personally engaged in protected activity by opposing a practice, making a charge or assisting or participating in an investigation may maintain a claim.

Thompson did not claim that he had personally engaged in any protected activity, but that he was terminated in retaliation for Regalado’s EEOC charge.

The majority opinion for the en banc decision was written by Judge Richard Allen Griffin, who dissented from the three-judge panel’s decision that held for Thompson.

The majority stated that by adopting Thompson’s position, the court would have become “the first circuit court to hold that Title VII creates a cause of action for third-party retaliation on behalf of friends and family members who have not engaged in protected activity[,]”  which the court declined to do. 

The majority pointed out that the Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits have previously considered and rejected similar third-party retaliation claims, which seemed to influence its view.  

Here are an article by Tresa Baldas about the decision in yesterday's National Law Journal, as well as Bob Ambrogi's post today in Legal Blog Watch.

Baldas' article points out that the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have extended protection from retaliation to third parties, a fact also noted by Judge Karen Nelson Moore in her dissent (which was one of three separate dissents). 

It doesn't  appear that the Fourth Circuit has ruled on a retaliation-by-association claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There are a few more items I want to mention today about the Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company. The first is a personal statement released by Don L. Blankenship, the chairman of Massey Energy Co., and the person whose 2004 campaign contributions on behalf of Brent Benjamin created the conflict that culminated in the Court’s decision on Monday.

Blankenship’s statement is not on Massey’s website and apparently does not represent Massey’s official reaction to the decision. Massey’s statement released on Monday quotes only Shane Harvey, Massey’s general counsel and vice-president, and is far more measured than Blankenship’s.

Blankenship’s statement is his attempt to justify his substantial financial support on behalf of Justice Benjamin, even though the highest court in the country just held that his support objectively required Justice Benjamin to recuse himself from Caperton, and that Justice Benjamin's failure to due so denied Hugh Caperton and his companies due process under the United States Constitution. I guess if I were in Blankenship’s position, I’d issue a statement that was as unapologetic and arrogant as the motive behind the contributions that were at the heart of the situation.

Of more interest and, I think, far more value is this interview on The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times with Thomas R. Phillips, retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, and an author of an amicus brief in Caperton on behalf of the conference of chief justices in support of neither party.

I encourage you to read his entire interview, which is brief, but this is his analysis of the decision:

Caperton established a principle that is really important: There are constitutional concerns with a judge sitting in judgment of a case where a party is a significant donor. At some point, the support becomes so substantial and so overwhelming that due process requires the judge to step aside, even if neither the donor not [sic] the judge did anything illegal or even unethical.

(Emphasis added.)

He identifies six criteria in Caperton that must be satisfied in order to establish a violation of a party’s due process and contends that its holding is so narrow that, “I’m not sure Caperton will ever be direct precedent for another recusal.”

Finally, here’s a post from Daily Kos that’s getting quite a bit of traction around the Internet. Its title is a reference to John Grisham’s novel, The Appeal, which, by sheer coincidence, I finished reading about 2 a.m. Monday morning.

As you may be aware, when the book came out last year, Grisham stated that the story wasn't far-fetched and had already happened in West Virginia, which, allowing for some poetic license in the novel, is accurate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There has been so much reaction and commentary about the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company that it is hard to know where to begin.

First, I want to discuss the dissents, which I did not do in my post yesterday  because I wanted to focus on Justice Kennedy’s opinion.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissent in which Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined. He criticized the majority opinion for

enlist[ing] the Due Process Clause to overturn a judge’s failure to recuse because of a "probability of bias." Unlike the established grounds for disqualification, a "probability of bias" cannot be defined in any limited way. The Court’s new "rule" provides no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required. This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be. The end result will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a particular case.

(Emphasis added.)

He also identified 40 “fundamental questions” that courts will now have to determine “with little help from the majority,” such as:

1. How much money is too much money? What level or contribution or expenditure gives rise to a ‘probability of bias’?

6. Does the analysis change depending on whether the judge whose disqualification is sought sits on a trial court, appeals court, or state supreme court?

8. What if the “disproportionately’ large expenditure is made by an industry association, trade union, physicians’ group, or the plaintiffs’ bar? Must the judge recuse in all cases that affect the association’s interests? Must the judge recuse in all cases in which a party or lawyer is a member of that group? Does it matter how much the litigant contributed to the association?

13. Must the judge’s vote be outcome determinative in order for his non-recusal to constitute a due process violation?

21. Does close personal friendship between a judge and a party or lawyer now give rise to a probability of bias?

24. Under the majority’s ‘objective’ test, do we analyze the due process issue through the lens of a reasonable person, a reasonable lawyer, or a reasonable judge?

35. What is the proper remedy? After a successful Caperton motion, must the parties start from scratch before the lower courts? Is any part of the lower court judgment retained?

Chief Justice Roberts also looked at two of the Court’s decisions in cases involving double jeopardy (United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989) and Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997)), and drew a comparison with the Court’s holding in Caperton, saying that,

The déjà vu is enough to make one swoon. Today, the majority again departs from a clear, longstanding constitutional rule to accommodate an ‘extreme’ case involving ‘grossly disproportionate’ amounts of money. I believe we will come to regret this decision as well, when courts are forced to deal with a wide variety of Caperton motions, each proclaiming the title of "most extreme" or "most disproportionate.

(Emphasis added.)

He also pointed out that, “Justice Benjamin just might have won because the voters of West Virginia thought he would be a better judge than his opponent. Unlike the majority, I cannot say with any degree of certainty that Blankenship ‘cho[se] the judge in his own cause.' Ante, at 16. I would give the voters of West Virginia more credit than that.”

(Emphasis added.)

Justice Scalia also dissented separately, and predicted that the Court’s decision would have the effect of reinforcing the perception that “litigation is just a game, that the party with the most resourceful lawyer can play it to win, that our seemingly interminable legal proceedings are wonderfully self-perpetuating but incapable of delivering real-world justice.” He also predicted that the opinion would add to “the vast arsenal of lawyerly gambits what will come to be known as the Caperton claim.”

Yesterday, Chief Justice Benjamin issued this statement regarding the decision, which was written on his official letterhead and posted on the Supreme Court of Appeals’ website, but was described as “personal” and “not a release of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.”

For coverage of the decision, let me start with Paul Nyden’s article in today’s Charleston Gazette, and Jake Stump’s article in today’s Daily Mail. Nyden also wrote an interesting sidebar about who will preside as chief justice when Chief Justice Benjamin recuses himself. I think it will be Justice Robin Davis, as she has the most seniority, but apparently no one from the Court is willing to go on the record at this point.

What is most interesting is that when the Court hears this appeal again, probably during its term that starts in September, Justice Davis, who wrote both of the previous majority opinions, will be the only member who has considered the appeal. Justices Margaret Workman and Menis Ketchum were elected last November and Justice Thomas McHugh was appointed to serve the remainder of Justice Albright's term through 2010. And the acting chief justice must appoint a replacement for Chief Justice Benjamin. So how the Court will rule for the third, and presumably last, time is very much open.

For a sampling of commentary and analysis, Tony Mauro has this article on The National Law Journal 's website; on The BLT ,he has this post about Chief Justice Roberts’ connection to United States v. Halper, one of the double jeopardy cases cited in his dissent.

Carolyn Elefant of Legal Blog Watch wrote this post yesterday about the decision, with links to Mauro, Lyle Dennis at SCOTUSBlog, and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley.  Also, here is some analysis from the Constitutional Prof Law Blog.

For a couple of different takes on the decision, here are Dahlia Lithwick's "The Great Caperton Caper" on Slate and a post from Balkinization. 

And from blogs that focus on appellate litigation, here are Todd Smith's post at Texas Appellate Law Blog, which questions the effect of the decision on Texas courts, whose members are elected, and a post from Alabama Appellate Watch, which is written by Lightfoot Franklin White LLC.  

Finally, I think there have been as many editorials as there have been news articles and blog posts about the decision. But for your consideration, here is The New York Times' editorial today entitled "Honest Justice" and The Wall Street Journal's editorial entitled "Judges and 'Bias.'" I'll leave it to you to figure out what each paper thought about the decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion today in Caperton v. Massey and in a 5-4 decision held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Chief Justice Brent Benjamin to recuse himself from Caperton's appeal and reversed the Supreme Court of Appeals' decision in Massey's favor and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the majority "do not question his [Justice Benjamin's subjective findings of impartiality and propriety. Nor do we determine whether there was actual bias."

But the Court found that the "difficulties of inquiring into actual bias ... simply underscore the need for objective rules":

Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge's recusal, but this is an exceptional case... We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias -- based on objective and reasonable perceptions -- when a person with a personal stake in a particular case has had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent. The inquiry centers on the contribution's relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election.

(Emphasis added.)

The Court concluded, based on the application of the principle, that:

... Blankenship's campaign efforts had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing Justice Benjamin on the case. Blankenship contributed some $3 million to unseat the incumbent and replace him with Benjamin. His contributions eclipsed the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and exceeded by 300% the amount spent by Benjamin's campaign committee. App. 288a. Caperton claims Blankenship spent $1 million more than the total amount spent by the campaign committees of both candidates combined. Brief for Petitioners 28.

(Emphasis added.)

The Court rejected Massey's argument that ultimately West Virginia voters elected Justice Benjamin to the Court, stating that, "[w]hether Blankenship's campaign contributions were a necessary and sufficient cause of Benjamin's victory is not the proper inquiry. Much like determining whether a judge is actually biased, proving what ultimately drives the electorate to choose a particular candidate is a difficult endeavor, not likely to lend itself to a certain conclusion."

The Court also focused on the "temporal relationship between the campaign contributions, the justice election, and the pendency of the case...", meaning the the winner of the election would be on the Court when it reviewed the $50 million verdict:

Although there is no allegation of a quid pro quo agreement, the fact remains that Blankenship's extraordinary contributions were made at a time when he had a vested stake in the outcome. Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when -- without the consent of the other parties -- a man chooses the judge in his own cause. And applying this principle to the judicial election process, there was here a serious, objective risk of actual bias that required Justice Benjamin's recusal.

(Emphasis added.)

In describing this as "an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal," the majority opinion also rejected Massey and its amici's prediction that finding a constitutional violation in this case would result in various adverse consequences, "ranging from a flood of recusal motions to unnecessary interference with judicial elections." 

The Court found that almost every state, including West Virginia, had adopted the American Bar Association's objective standard that "a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," and also noted that the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct required a judge's recusal in similar circumstances.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissent in which Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined, and Justice Scalia also dissented separately.

I'll write some more about the decision, but I wanted to provide the opinion right now.  For some additional reaction, here is SCOTUSBlog's initial post  and David Stout's article in The New York Times.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), dealt with a detainee’s claims that he had been discriminated against and treated harshly during his detention. But the Supreme Court dismissed his complaint for failure to state sufficient facts to support his claims against former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III.

For background on the case, here is SCOTUSBlog's analysis of the decision and its effect on future claims that attempt to impose liability on high-ranking officials for the conduct of their subordinates.

Even though Iqbal's facts are unique, I am interested in it because of its language that is troublesome to plaintiffs in federal lawsuits in general.

According to Tony Mauro, who wrote last month about the decision in The National Law Journal, Iqbal “could make it significantly harder for plaintiffs in a broad range of cases to survive defendants’ motions to dismiss….”

The reason is that the opinion appears to expand on the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.544 (2007), which held that initial pleadings must state a claim that is “plausible on its face,” a change from Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), which had interpreted Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require dismissal of a complaint only if the plaintiff could prove “no set of facts” that would entitle him or her to relief. Because Twombly had arisen in an action alleging violations of the Sherman Act, practitioners questioned whether the holding applied outside of antitrust litigation.

But Iqbal, which, like Twombly, was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, makes clear that it applies far beyond antitrust cases, and, according to Alan Morrison, incoming dean and professor of law at George Washington University Law School, “is an invitation to raise a Twombly issue in every case.” 

I have not read Iqbal’s complaint, but according to Mauro’s article, it was extremely detailed and should have been able to withstand the motion to dismiss. As a practical matter, plaintiffs often do not have access to a lot of information when they file suit, which requires them to make “bare-bones” allegations in their complaints. Iqbal increases the possibility of dismissal due to their lack of detail. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A couple months ago, I wrote about the furor over the bonuses paid to some AIG employees, which resulted in the House of Representatives passing a bill that would tax the bonuses at 90%. Although that crisis passed, it looks like another financial services company got the hint. 

According to several news reports today, Citigroup has told approximately five former executives that they are not going to receive severance payments that Citigroup is contractually obligated to make.

As reported by David Enrich in The Wall Street Journal, Citigroup has cancelled the payments because it doesn’t want to risk a public uproar, and is “wagering that the former executives will conclude that it would be publicly embarrassing for them to file lawsuits against the struggling, taxpayer-backed company seeking the money.” 

I’m not sure that Citigroup is going to win that wager. First of all, Citigroup is deciding on its own, without any pressure or demand from the government, not to make the severance payments. Thus, Citigroup is breaching the agreements of its own volition and can’t claim that the government is coercing or requiring it not to make the payments.

Second, the amounts involved are more than enough incentive for the executives to pursue litigation regardless of whether the attendant publicity embarrasses them. The severance payments total approximately $100 million, of which Citigroup has paid more than half. But that leaves a lot of money to fight over. For example, one executive, Michael Klein, was owed $21.3 million in cash on March 31 and another $7.5 million on October 5, although it isn’t clear whether Citigroup made the March payment to Klein. So, Klein is losing at least $7.5 million due to Citigroup’s decision.

I think at least some of the executives will file suit against Citigroup, assuming that Citigroup does not reconsider its decision and pay them their severance payments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks