The Supreme Court Limbers Up to Aid and Abet Trump’s Coup

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes how the U.S. Supreme Court is readying itself to declare Trump the winner of the election. Professor Buchanan points out that no court acting in good faith would apply the text of the Constitution or existing Supreme Court precedents in a way that would allow any of this scheme to see the light of day, but based on what Justice Kavanaugh has written and what Justice Gorsuch strongly suggests, the Court might not even have that minimum amount of good faith.

Read More

If the Challengers Prevail on the Merits of the ACA California v. Texas Case, What is the Appropriate Remedy and What Effect Should the Ruling Have on the Entirety of the ACA? Part Four in a Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

In this fourth of a series of columns examining the California v. Texas case challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar, Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker, and Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone consider what the appropriate remedy should be if the challengers prevail on the merits of the case. The authors explain why enjoining the 2017 amendment, which zeroed out the potential tax penalty for failure to maintain the specified health insurance coverage, is a more appropriate remedy than striking down the entire ACA.

Read More

The U.S. Supreme Court Cannot Determine the Election Result

AUSTIN SARAT, DANIEL B. EDELMAN

Amherst College Associate Provost Austin Sarat and attorney Daniel B. Edelman argue that there is nothing the Supreme Court can do to prevent governors from certifying slates of electors that actually reflect the vote of the people in their states. Sarat and Edelman explain why Bush v Gore is both inapplicable, and by its own terms, never supposed to be used as precedent.

Read More

Scalia v. Wynnewood Refining

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 19-9533

Opinion Date: October 27, 2020

Judge: Moritz

Areas of Law: Business Law, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

After a boiler exploded at a refinery, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited the refinery’s owner, Wynnewood Refining Co., LLC, for violating 29 C.F.R. section 1910.119, which set forth requirements for the management of highly hazardous chemicals. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the Commission) upheld the violations, noting that the refinery had previously violated section 1910.119, but the prior violations occurred before Wynnewood LLC owned the refinery, and therefore occurred under a different employer. Accordingly, the Commission did not classify the violations as “repeat violations” under 29 U.S.C. 666(a), which permitted increased penalties for “employer[s] who willfully or repeatedly violate” the regulation. Wynnewood appealed the Commission’s order, arguing that section 1910.119 did not apply to the boiler that exploded. The Tenth Circuit found section 1910.119’s plain text unambiguously applied to the boiler, and affirmed that portion of the Commission’s order upholding the violations. The U.S. Secretary of Labor also appealed the Commission's order, arguing the Commission erred by failing to characterize the violations as repeat violations. To this, the Tenth Circuit agreed Wynnewood was not the same employer as the refinery's previous owner, thus affirming that portion of the Commission's order relating to the repeat violations.

Fagan v. Warren Averett Companies, LLC

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Docket: 1190285

Opinion Date: October 23, 2020

Judge: Alisa Kelli Wise

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Business Law, Contracts, Labor & Employment Law

Plaintiff Gerriann Fagan appealed a circuit court order granting defendant Warren Averett Companies, LLC's motion to compel arbitration. Fagan was the owner of The Prism Group, LLC, a human-resources consulting firm. In February 2015, Warren Averett approached her and asked her to join Warren Averett and to build a human-resources consulting practice for it. In February 2015, she agreed to join Warren Averett, entering into a "Transaction Agreement" which provided that: Fagan would wind down the operations of The Prism Group; Fagan would become a member of Warren Averett; Warren Averett would purchase The Prism Group's equipment and furniture; Warren Averett would assume responsibility for The Prism Group's leases; and that Warren Averett would assume The Prism Group's membership in Career Partners International, LLC. The Transaction Agreement further provided that Fagan would enter into a "Standard Personal Service Agreement" ("the PSA") with Warren Averett; that Fagan's title would be president of Warren Averett Workplace; and that Fagan would be paid in accordance with the compensation schedule outlined in the PSA. Fagan alleged that she subsequently resigned from Warren Averett when she was unable to resolve a claim that Warren Averett had failed to properly compensate her in accordance with the PSA. On or about February 28, 2019, Fagan filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). The employment-filing team of the AAA sent a letter dated March 4, 2019, to the parties informing them of the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. On April 18, 2019, the employment-filing team notified the parties that Warren Averett had failed to submit the requested filing fee and that it was administratively closing the file in the matter. On April 30, 2019, Fagan sued Warren Averett in circuit court. The Alabama Supreme Court determined Warren Averett's failure to pay the filing fee constituted a default under the arbitration provision of the PSA. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it granted Warren Averett's motion to compel arbitration.

Luxury Asset Lending v. Philadelphia Television Network

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: G057766(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: William W. Bedsworth

Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure

Two powerful friends decided to take out significant loans in order to invest in a purported business opportunity overseas. The business opportunity was in reality, a scam. The friends offered as collateral assets which were not theirs to encumber. The third party to whom the assets belonged had no idea the assets were being so encumbered. And the "lender" was another investor in the scam intent on recouping its investment. The opportunity was "a complete bust," and the friends were unable to pay the loans back. The lender sued to collect what was owed and foreclose on its secured interest in the offered collateral. The friends failed to answer the lawsuit, and a default judgment was obtained. The lender then began to execute on its judgment. The issues presented for the Court of Appeal's review centered on two main issues: (1) whether the default judgment was void; and (2) assuming it was valid, whether the trial court should have vacated the default and default judgment under its statutory and equitable powers. The Court determined the order denying the motion to vacate default judgment should have been reversed, and the matter remanded for the trial court to vacate the default, default judgment and an assignment order (entered April 30, 2018).

RGC Gaslamp v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co.

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: D075615(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: October 23, 2020

Judge: Dato

Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure, Construction Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Subcontractor Ehmcke Sheet Metal Company (Ehmcke) recorded a mechanic’s lien to recoup payment due for sheet metal fabrication and installation work done on a luxury hotel project in downtown San Diego. Project owner RGC Gaslamp, LLC (RGC) secured a bond to release the lien. Thereafter Ehmcke filed three successive mechanic’s liens, each identical to the first, prompting RGC to sue it for quiet title, slander of title, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court granted Ehmke’s special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court found that Ehmcke met its moving burden because the filing of even an invalid lien was protected petitioning activity. Thereafter, the court found that RGC failed to make a prima facie showing that its sole remaining cause of action for slander of title could withstand application of the litigation privilege. RGC appeals both findings, arguing that the duplicative filing of mechanic’s liens after the posting of a bond was not protected activity. The Court of Appeal concluded after review that RGC erroneously imported substantive requirements of the litigation privilege into the first step of the anti-SLAPP inquiry. Ehmcke met that moving burden once its erroneously excluded reply declarations were considered. With the burden shifted on prong two, RGC failed to make a prima facie showing that the litigation privilege did not bar its slander-of-title cause of action. The anti-SLAPP motion was thus properly granted, and Court likewise affirmed the subsequent attorney’s fees and costs award.

In Re Solera Insurance Coverage Appeals

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Docket: 413 418, 2019

Opinion Date: October 23, 2020

Judge: Karen L. Valihura

Areas of Law: Business Law, Insurance Law, Securities Law

Insurance providers asked the Delaware Supreme Court whether certain costs incurred in connection with an appraisal action under 8 Del. C. 262 were precluded from coverage under the primary and excess directors’ and officers’ insurance policies (the “D&O Policies”) issued to Solera Holdings, Inc. (“Solera”). An affiliate of Vista Equity acquired Solera in 2016. That transaction gave rise to litigation, including an appraisal action. Solera requested coverage under the D&O Policies for the Appraisal Action. The insurers denied the request. Solera then filed suit against the insurers for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, seeking coverage for pre-judgment interest and defense expenses incurred in connection with the Appraisal Action. However, Solera did not seek coverage for the underlying fair value amount paid to the dissenting stockholders, upon which the pre-judgment interest was based. The issuer of the primary policy settled, and the excess policy insurers moved for summary judgment. The superior court denied the motion, interpreting the policy to hold that: (1) a “Securities Claim” under the policy was not limited to a claim alleging wrongdoing, and the Appraisal Action was for a “violation” under the Securities Claim definition; (2) because the “Loss” definition was not limited by any other language, the policy covered pre-judgment interest on a non-covered loss; and (3) as to defense expenses, Delaware law implied a prejudice requirement in insurance contract consent clauses, and Solera’s breach of the consent clause did not bar coverage for defense expenses absent a showing of prejudice. The Insurers appealed, contending that the superior court erred in holding that the Appraisal Action could be covered under the D&O Policies for a violation of a “Securities Claim.” The Supreme Court disagreed with the superior court's determination the Appraisal Action was for a “violation,” concluding the Appraisal Action did not fall within the definition of a “Securities Claim.” Because the Appraisal Action was not a Securities Claim, the remaining issues were moot.

United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Zuckerberg

Court: Delaware Court of Chancery

Docket: C.A. No. 2018-0671-JTL

Opinion Date: October 26, 2020

Judge: Laster

Areas of Law: Business Law

The Court of Chancery granted Defendants' motion to dismiss this derivative action under Rule 23.1 on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to demand that the Facebook board of directors (the Board) pursue the litigation and did not establish that demand was futile. At the request of Mark Zuckerberg, the Board pursued a reclassification of Facebook's shares, the result of which would be to shift two-thirds of Facebook's economic value to the non-voting stock and enable Zuckerberg to transfer the bulk of his economic ownership in Facebook without giving up voting control. After a lawsuit, the Board withdrew the reclassification. Plaintiff then filed a derivative action against Zuckerberg and Board members that approved the reclassification, claiming that the pursuit of the reclassification constituted a breach of duty and that Facebook was harmed as a result. Plaintiff chose not to make a pre-suit demand. Defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 23.1. The Court of Chancery granted the motion, holding that demand was not excused on the grounds that the directors were incapable of making an impartial decision regarding whether to institute such litigation.

Aqreva, LLC v. Eide Bailly, LLP

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: LLC v. EIDE BAILLY, LLP, 2020 S.D. 59

Opinion Date: October 28, 2020

Judge: Kern

Areas of Law: Business Law, Contracts

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants with respect all of Plaintiff's claims except for counts four and five, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment. This litigation arose from Aqreva, LLC's purchase of medical practice management service from Eide Bailly, LLP. Aqreva sued Eide Bailly, Shelly Kampmann, Lee Brandt, and LJB, Inc. claiming breach of contract and various torts, alleging that Defendants violated non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality clauses in several contracts and that Defendants committed, among other torts, civil conspiracy and fraud. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants with respect to all claims except for those concerning Kampmann's employment agreement and the alleged tortious interference with a contract by Brandt and LJB. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the the circuit court properly granted summary judgment on counts one through three and six through nine.