Robin Stacie Rosenbaum

In Ostrow v. GlobeCast America Inc., plaintiff Andrew Ostrow sued his former employer for breach of contract (following partial summary judgment dismissal of his age discrimination claim), alleging that GlobeCast failed to pay severance and bonuses owed under his employment agreement after his term ended. In this pretrial order, the court ruled on five defense motions in limine seeking to bar various categories of evidence at the upcoming trial. It granted the unopposed motion to exclude settlement-negotiation evidence and the motion to exclude evidence of alleged discrimination against other former employees, denied the motions to exclude parol and extrinsic evidence concerning the meaning of the severance clause and GlobeCast’s past severance practices, and deferred a ruling on evidence relating to a separate settlement with another employee. The court reasoned that the contract’s severance provision is ambiguous as to whether payments were required upon non-renewal, allowing extrinsic evidence of intent and past practice, while the other excluded evidence was either irrelevant or barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 408.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Jeannine DuChateau’s claims against her employer, CDM, for pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and retaliation under the FMLA. DuChateau alleged that after announcing her planned maternity leave in 2008 while working on the “Go Green” environmental project for client Lockheed Martin, a supervisor made negative comments about her pregnancy, she was reassigned from a project-management role to deputy program manager, and her hours were later reduced. The court granted in part and denied in part CDM’s motion for summary judgment. It rejected arguments that Florida’s FCRA or FHRA preempt or conflict with Title VII, held that the supervisor’s remarks constituted circumstantial rather than direct evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory intent, and found triable issues regarding whether the reassignment deprived DuChateau of work that would have affected her hours, while noting the absence of a state-law pregnancy-discrimination claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a civil enforcement action in which the Federal Trade Commission sued First Universal Lending, LLC, and its principals for allegedly violating the FTC Act and Telemarketing Sales Rule by misrepresenting their ability to obtain affordable mortgage loan modifications for nearly all consumers. Defendants moved to enjoin the prosecution, citing issues such as evidence handling and spoliation after a consent agreement led to the surrender of their lender's license and the creation of a related entity. Following a four-day evidentiary hearing and review of declarations, consumer complaints, and other records, the court denied the motion, concluding that the evidence did not support halting the case.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Securities and Exchange Commission bringing an enforcement action against W. Anthony Huff and relief defendants, alleging that from 2001 to 2004 Huff secretly controlled Certified Services, Inc., and violated federal securities laws by inflating its financial condition with approximately $47 million in bogus letters of credit, failing to report about $65 million in liabilities, and diverting millions through sham agreements with Midwest Merger Management, LLC. After a seven-day bench trial with stipulated facts and extensive evidence including depositions and exhibits, the court issued amended findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, holding Huff liable for violations of the Securities Act and Exchange Act and requiring disgorgement of ill-gotten gains along with civil penalties. The reasoning focused on Huff's control person status, the materiality of the misrepresentations and omissions to investors and the SEC, and the calculation of gains subject to disgorgement without requiring proof of specific investor losses.

business & regulatory

The case involved the SEC's civil enforcement action against W. Anthony Huff and relief defendants, alleging that from 2001 to 2004 Huff secretly controlled Certified Services, Inc., a professional employee leasing firm, and with others used fraudulent schemes to overstate its assets by about $47 million through bogus letters of credit while understating liabilities by about $65 million, diverting tens of millions to himself via sham agreements with Midwest Merger Management LLC. After a seven-day bench trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law determining that Huff violated antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and Exchange Act, including Section 17(a), Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5, as well as control-person liability under Section 20(a). The court ordered Huff to disgorge over $10 million in ill-gotten gains (with some joint and several liability considerations for relief defendants), pay civil monetary penalties, face permanent injunctive relief barring future violations and officer/director roles at public companies, and be barred from penny-stock offerings, reasoning from trial evidence, stipulations, and precedents that the schemes were pervasive and directly produced the documented gains.

business & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Barbara Lawson, a Black Jamaican woman with sickle cell disease who worked as an executive secretary at Plantation General Hospital, suing her former employer after an involuntary transfer to a different role and subsequent termination. Lawson alleged violations of Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, the FMLA, and the FCRA, claiming discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, age, and disability, as well as retaliation for taking FMLA leave; the hospital countered that its actions stemmed from legitimate business reasons including a reduction in force. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part after reviewing the record of undisputed facts, performance history, medical events, and comparator evidence. Core reasoning centered on whether Lawson had established prima facie cases for each claim, the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding pretext and discriminatory intent on surviving claims, and the failure to meet evidentiary thresholds on others such as certain aspects of gender discrimination.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves the Huffs' motion to enjoin an SEC investigation into Oxygen Unlimited and quash subpoenas served on them, claiming that the possibility of criminal prosecution for non-compliance under 15 U.S.C. § 78u(c) coerces them into complying without judicial review, violating procedural due process. The court denied the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the subpoenas outside of an SEC enforcement action and that the statutory scheme does not violate due process because challenges can be raised in enforcement proceedings without risking criminal liability if there is "just cause" for non-compliance. The reasoning relies on precedents establishing that SEC subpoenas are not self-enforcing and that similar regulatory frameworks allow for review without the due process concerns identified in Ex Parte Young.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Ward and Elyse Wrangen, as assignees of Omicron Supplies, sued Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract and declaratory relief after the insurer denied coverage and defense in an underlying negligence suit involving glue fumes that allegedly injured Ward Wrangen. The underlying suit settled for $4.5 million via a consent judgment, and plaintiffs sought to enforce the settlement against the insurer. Plaintiffs moved for a protective order to block the insurer's deposition and discovery requests targeting causation and liability issues from the underlying incident, arguing these matters were irrelevant and settled. The court denied the motion, holding that Florida law requires plaintiffs to make a prima facie showing of both the reasonableness of the settlement and good faith, inquiries that encompass the underlying facts of liability and causation.

proceduretorts & liability