Supreme Court Sets Oral Argument In Helmer Friedman LLP Case
(Washington, DC) – Today the United States Supreme Court scheduled oral argument in a Helmer Friedman LLP case — Lightfoot v. Fannie Mae, Cendant Mortgage Corporation, et. al. (14-1055) — for November 8, 2016. At issue in the Lightfoot v. Fannie Mae case is whether individual homeowners who have been wrongly or fraudulently foreclosed upon by Fannie Mae have the right to sue the mortgage giant in the state courts. Commenting about the Supreme Court’s decision to schedule oral argument so quickly after the Supreme Court had granted Helmer Friedman’s petition for certiorari, Andrew H. Friedman, of Helmer Friedman LLP, exclaimed, “We are absolutely thrilled that the Supreme Court is moving so quickly on this important issue which affects thousands of homeowners as well as Fannie Mae employees who would prefer to vindicate their rights in their own state courts where the laws may be more favorable to them than in the federal courts.”
“The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in this case is the culmination of several years of work,” said Gregory D. Helmer. “We knew it was a longshot, but decided the issue was important enough to battle the odds. For years, Fannie Mae has argued that individuals do not have the right to proceed against them in state court. But, in our view, the language of Fannie Mae’s corporate charter authorizes an individual to commence a legal action in a state court so long as that court has a legitimate basis for jurisdiction. We look forward to making that argument to the Supreme Court and hope the Court shares our perspective.”
Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles Publishes Article by Andrew H. Friedman
The June 2016 edition of the Advocate Magazine (published by the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles) features an article by Helmer Friedman LLP partner Andrew H. Friedman. The article – “The Best and Worst Employment Cases of 2015” – examines, praises and lambasts those decisions from the U.S. and California Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit and the California Courts of Appeal and federal district courts. A copy of the article can be viewed here.
2015 continued a remarkable recent trend in which the California state and federal courts issued, on an almost daily basis, a deluge of employment decisions. Buried within this torrent of opinions are some cases – the “best” and the “worst” (from the perspective of the plaintiff employee) – about which the employment practitioner must be aware. This article attempts to “cherry-pick” and summarize not just the most important cases from 2015 (and very early 2016) but also those that are of the most utility to the plaintiff employment practitioner. Read more >>
Former General Manager Files Suit to Demand Justice From Government Contractor
The former General Manager of MV Transportation’s San Leandro, California office filed a lawsuit today in Los Angeles County Superior Court against his prior employer, MV Transportation, and its Regional Vice President, Clarence Michael Stewman (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC614873). Plaintiff Aaron Gonzales’ lawsuit alleges, among other things, that MV Transportation and Mr. Stewman lured him away from his job in Texas to begin a new position in California based on false promises and representations, and that after he arrived in California, the defendants reneged on their obligation to pay Mr. Gonzales his quarterly bonus for meeting performance goals.
California Labor Code Section 970 prohibits an employer or individual from persuading a person to move residences for a job, “by means of knowingly false representations” regarding compensation or other matter. Mr. Gonzales’ lawsuit alleges that when he complained about the underpayment of his bonus, the company fired him in retaliation for his complaints, which is unlawful under California law.
MV Transportation provides passenger transportation via fixed-route, paratransit (for people with disabilities) and school buses. MV TRANSPORATION contracts primarily with government entities across the U.S. and Canada and provides consulting services world-wide. MV TRANSPORTATION boasts annual revenues of $1,000,000,000.00 (one billion dollars) and operates nearly 10,000 transit vehicles and employs more than 16,500 transit professionals.
Mr. Gonzales is represented by Helmer Friedman, LLP a Culver City, California law firm that represents employees and other individuals who seeking to assert their rights. Mr. Gonzales’ attorney, Andrew H. Friedman stated, “No private company, particularly ones that receive public money, ostensibly to carry out public services, should be permitted to flout employment laws and betray the trust that taxpayers have bestowed in them.” Mr. Friedman continued, “Corporations headquartered in Texas sometimes mistakenly think that they can come to California and act like this is the ‘wild west.’ But even corporations headquartered in other states must follow California employment laws.”
For more information about Mr. Gonzales’ lawsuit, please contact Andrew Friedman or Lincoln Ellis at 310-396-7714. Similarly, if you are a witness or have information that would be relevant to Mr. Gonzales’ claims please contact Mr. Friedman and/or Mr. Ellis. A copy of Mr. Gonzales’ lawsuit can be found here.
The Best and Worst Employment Cases of 2015
Andrew H. Friedman Authors Article on the Most Notable Employment Cases of 2015
$5.7 Million Jury Verdict for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
May 1, 2015 –
Court of Appeal Affirm’s Ted Mathew’s $5.7 Million Jury Verdict For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Today, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court ruling and reinstated a $5.7 Million jury verdict that Charles “Ted” Mathews obtained on behalf Dr. Michael W. Fitzgibbons. Commenting about this victory, Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, said “Ted’s victory today exemplifies why we wanted him to join our law firm. We think that Ted is one of the premier trial attorneys on the West Coast and we could not be happier that he is working with us.”
Mr. Mathews’ client, Dr. Fitzgibbons, sued his former employer, Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (“IHHI”), for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the conduct of IHHI’s chief executive officer (“CEO”). At trial, the jury impliedly found that IHHI’s CEO carried out his threat to “humble” Dr. Fitzgibbons by having him arrested after arranging for a loaded handgun to be planted in his car. The jury also impliedly found the CEO caused Dr. Fitzgibbons’s daughter to be in a serious auto accident after one of her tires was slashed. The CEO retaliated against Dr. Fitzgibbons to punish him for his outspoken opposition to IHHI’s acquisition of the hospital where Dr. Fitzgibbons had just completed a term as chief of staff, and also Dr. Fitzgibbons’s success in an earlier lawsuit that resulted in a $150,000 attorneys fee award against IHHI. Accordingly, the jury found in favor of Dr. Fitzgibbons and awarded him $5.7 million in compensatory and punitive damages on his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against IHHI.
Following the trial, the trial court granted IHHI’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because it found IHHI was not vicariously liable for its CEO’s misconduct under the respondeat superior doctrine. According to the trial court, the CEO acted outside the scope of his employment because he held a personal grudge against Fitzgibbons and therefore his conduct was not reasonably foreseeable.
The Court of Appeal decision can be found here.
Courtney Abrams “Rising Star” Second Year
March 3, 2015 – Courtney Abrams has been selected as a “Rising Star” for the second year in a row.