Plaintiff David Bergstein sued his former employer, Jordache Enterprises, for breach of contract over unpaid sales commissions, tortious interference with contract, and violations of the Pennsylvania Commissioned Sales Representatives Act, after his discharge. The motion at issue sought to modify a magistrate judge's discovery order that had denied the plaintiff's requests for an adverse inference and sanctions based on the defendant's loss of sales-commission records belonging to other non-party salespersons, some dating back to 1982. The district court denied the motion under the clearly erroneous standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), concluding that the magistrate had properly found no bad faith or intent to destroy relevant evidence, as the loss occurred in the ordinary course of business and the magistrate was best positioned to evaluate the parties' conduct during discovery. The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that paragraphs in the complaint made the records relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 406.
This case involved a consolidated multidistrict securities class action where plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with public offerings of units in equipment-leasing limited partnerships. The parties reached a settlement creating a $14,750,000 fund, which the court had previously approved. Addressing the plaintiffs' counsel's petition for fees and expenses from that fund, the court applied the lodestar method with a risk-enhancement multiplier of 1.44 after reviewing contemporaneous time records, awarding $2,454,791.40 in attorney's fees and $55,427.80 in litigation expenses while denying reimbursement for certain post-settlement and unrelated costs. The reasoning emphasized computing a fair fee under applicable precedents in common-fund cases that benefits the settlement fund as a whole.
This case is a federal declaratory judgment action brought by insurer National Casualty Company seeking a ruling on its obligations under a general liability policy issued to Jordache Enterprises, specifically whether it must defend or indemnify Jordache in an underlying patent-infringement lawsuit and related ITC proceeding. Jordache moved to stay the federal action in favor of a parallel California state-court breach-of-contract suit it had filed against National, and also sought dismissal of the claims against the other named defendants. The court denied both motions, holding that it had diversity jurisdiction, that the California action had itself been stayed pending this proceeding, and that abstention was unwarranted because the case did not involve complex state regulatory schemes or other exceptional circumstances that would require deference to the state forum. The court further noted that Jordache lacked standing to seek dismissal of claims against the non-insured defendants and that the federal forum was convenient for the parties.
The case involved a class action by purchasers of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich preferred stock alleging that the company and related defendants made misrepresentations about its ability to meet financial obligations in connection with a 1987 recapitalization plan, in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5, and section 20. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the claims were time-barred because public filings and events had placed plaintiffs on inquiry notice more than one year before the suit was filed in March 1992. The court denied the motion, holding that inquiry notice could not be established as a matter of law at this stage because the disclosed facts about the recapitalization, asset sales, and debt did not clearly reveal material inconsistencies or retrenchments sufficient to trigger the limitations period. The court reasoned that distinguishing factors from prior cases, such as the nature of the disclosures and the absence of clear red flags like an IRS inquiry, precluded dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds.
This case involves a former employee, Roy Ludwig, who sued NYNEX Service Co. and related defendants under ERISA to recover pension benefits and obtain a declaratory judgment on portability rights after transitioning from AT&T to NYNEX employment. Ludwig also brought state-law claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract, alleging that NYNEX employees assured him he would not be treated as a portable employee, which would suspend his AT&T pension. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. The reasoning centered on the absence of any clear promise or representation regarding non-portability status, the inability of oral statements to modify ERISA plan terms, and the lack of reasonable reliance that could support estoppel claims under federal common law.
This case is a consolidated securities fraud class action brought by purchasers of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich common stock against the company and its officers under federal securities laws, alleging reliance on misstatements during a defined class period. The court denied plaintiffs Rand and LeWinter's appeal of a magistrate judge's order compelling production of complaints, deposition transcripts from other securities or class actions, and brokerage statements showing their trading activity in 1988-1989, finding the order neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law under Rule 72(a). The court also denied the motion by Rand, LeWinter, and Levy to withdraw as class representatives, determining that allowing withdrawal after fact discovery was nearly complete would prejudice the defendants. The ruling upheld the magistrate's broad discretion in discovery matters relevant to assessing the named plaintiffs' suitability as class representatives.
