District Court, E.D. Missouri — appointed by Richard Nixon
Koehler v. Green
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2005-05-09 · cited 1×
In Koehler v. Green, the plaintiff sued several attorneys and law firms who served as class and lead counsel in the underlying In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation multidistrict case, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The case was originally filed in the Southern District of New York but was sua sponte transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri by Judge Marrero under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) due to that court's familiarity with the related MDL proceedings. The plaintiff moved to retransfer the case back to New York, arguing that the transfer was improper because it occurred without prior notice or opportunity to be heard. The Eastern District of Missouri denied the motion, reasoning that transferee courts are generally reluctant to revisit transfer decisions of coordinate courts under the law-of-the-case doctrine, that the case has substantial connections to Missouri through the MDL, and that venue is appropriate there for the convenience of parties and in the interest of justice.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Martinez v. City of St. Louis
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2005-02-24 · cited 2×
This case concerns claims by two white applicants, Michael Martinez and Eric Deeken, who alleged that the City of St. Louis engaged in reverse racial discrimination by denying them entry-level firefighter positions pursuant to a 1976 consent decree that required hiring at least 50% black applicants to address past underrepresentation. The court had dissolved the consent decree in 2003 upon finding that the racial imbalances in the fire department had been eliminated, rendering the race-based goals no longer necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest. In the current proceedings, the court addresses cross-motions for summary judgment on the City's liability, noting the history of the decree and changes in relevant labor market demographics from city proper to the broader metropolitan area. The core reasoning involves determining whether enforcement of the decree constituted unlawful discrimination, considering that the decree was valid when implemented but later dissolved due to changed circumstances.
civil rightslabor & employment
Martinez v. City of St. Louis
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2004-01-30
The case arose from 1970s lawsuits by black firefighters and the United States alleging racial discrimination by the City of St. Louis in hiring and promotion within the fire department, which resulted in a 1976 consent decree governing entry-level hiring to increase black representation. In 2001, two unsuccessful white applicants, Martinez and Deeken, filed separate suits claiming reverse discrimination in the City's 1998 and 2001 hiring processes and seeking damages, equitable relief, and dissolution of the decree; the cases were consolidated and F.I.R.E. was added as a defendant. The court had previously dissolved the consent decree in November 2003, mooting claims related to its termination. On F.I.R.E.'s motion for summary judgment, the court dismissed F.I.R.E. as a defendant because the complaints made no allegations of liability against it under Title VII, Section 1981, or Section 1983, and no requested relief could be provided by F.I.R.E.
civil rightslabor & employment
In Re Bankamerica Corp. Securities Litigation
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2002-09-30 · cited 5×
This case involved a class action securities litigation arising from the merger of BankAmerica and NationsBank, where plaintiffs alleged violations of federal securities laws and California state law claims related to stock purchases around October 1998. The court considered a motion to approve a $490 million global settlement and a revised plan of allocation after previously rejecting an earlier version that provided no recovery to certain "October purchasers" of Bank of America stock who held shares without selling at a loss. The court approved the settlement and revised plan as fair, reasonable, and adequate, finding that allocating one-half of a damaged share to eligible October purchasers appropriately accounted for the relative strengths of their federal claims (subject to the PSLRA bounce-back provision) and stronger California claims compared to other plaintiffs' claims. The decision emphasized that the revised allocation reflected the procedural posture, claim values, and need to notify affected class members without requiring a full new notice process.
business & regulatoryprocedure
In Re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1999-12-15 · cited 27×
This case is a consolidated class action securities lawsuit brought by shareholders of NationsBank and old BankAmerica against the merging banks and their officers, alleging misrepresentations and omissions in the 1998 merger proxy/prospectus and related SEC filings. The complaint claimed the documents falsely portrayed the transaction as a 'merger of equals' with shared control and failed to disclose material risks from NationsBank's $1.4 billion unsecured loan to hedge fund D.E. Shaw & Co., which was leveraged into a $20 billion risky bond portfolio that suffered major losses. On defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, the district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, allowing certain claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 10(b) of the federal securities laws to proceed based on adequate pleading of material omissions while dismissing others for failure to plead scienter, control person liability, or other required elements under the PSLRA and Rule 9(b). The court applied heightened pleading standards to fraud claims but not to Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and it rejected application of the bespeaks-caution and safe-harbor doctrines to the alleged pre-existing facts.
business & regulatoryprocedure
United States v. Mansion House Center
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1991-07-08
The case involved disputes over the effectiveness and enforcement of the Second Restated Settlement Agreement (SRSA) between Towers Hotel Corporation and the Receiver of Mansion House Center Properties in consolidated federal lawsuits stemming from earlier foreclosure and property management issues. The court found that the SRSA became effective on December 2, 1985, following court approval after extensions and appellate remands that removed certain conditions. It decided remaining claims by calculating net damages owed between the parties based on lease provisions for rents and offsets, and directed the parties to stipulate or provide calculations for prejudgment interest on those damages.
procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory