The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

Carter v. Entercom Sacramento, LLC - Third District Court of Appeal, CA Facts :  As a result of drinking too much water during a radio contest, a woman died.  Her family sued the company that owned the radio station, Entercom, and Matt Carter, an Entercom employee who helped conduct the contest.  Entercom offered to provide legal counsel to Carter, but Carter chose to hire his own attorney and refused the attorney offered by the company's insurance carrier.  When the insurer refused to pay for the attorney Carter had selected, Carter cross-complained against Entercom, seeking indemnity under California Labor Code § 2802 for the fees and costs he incurred by paying the attorney he had selected.  The trial court held that none of the fees and costs that Carter had incurred after the insurer appointed an attorney to represent him in the suit were necessary expenditures.  The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed. Holding :  The Court held that Carter did not have an absol

Kaplan v. Code Blue Billing & Coding, Inc. - Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Plaintiffs were enrolled as students in MedVance Institute's Medical Billing and Coding Specialist program.  To graduate, MedVance required all students complete an externship program.  Plaintiffs completed their externship at Code Blue Billing & Coding, Inc., Magnetic Medical Management, Inc., and East Florida Eye Institute, P.A.   Plaintiffs did not expect nor receive payment for the work they performed. After completing their externships, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for work performed during their externship.  Plaintiffs argued they received very little educational benefit from their externships and instead had conferred economic benefit on Defendants.  As a result, Plaintiffs alleged they were "employees" under the FLSA and were entitled to minimum wage. The trial court granted Defendants' motion for

Roberts v. IBM - Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Facts : George Roberts worked for IBM and was subsequently fired after a few years at the company and a history of poor work performance.  Notwithstanding the history of poor work performance, Roberts brought an age discrimination claim against IBM and focused on two instances:  1) an instant message between Human Resources managers that talked about Roberts's "shelf life" and 2) the name of IBM's program used to eliminate positions that were not cost effective, labeled "Project Blue."  Roberts argued that the discussion of his "shelf life" was a reference to his age and that the name of IBM's "Project Blue" constituted direct evidence of age discrimination, given that "blue" often referred to older people with blue hair.  The District Court granted summary judgment for IBM. Holding :  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Roberts could not succeed

Purton v. Marriott International, Inc. - Fourth District Court of Appeal, CA Facts :  An employee of defendant consumed alcoholic beverages before and during an annual holiday party hosted by defendant.  The employee consumed hard liquor, some of which was provided by the bartender at the holiday party.  After the party was over, the employee left (a dispute exists as to whether the employee drove home with others or was only a passenger in the car).  After arriving safely at home, the employee decided to drive a coworker home that had become too intoxicated.  In doing so, the employee struck a vehicle driven by Dr. Jared Purton and killed him.  Plaintiff's parents brought suit against defendant and others.  The basis of this case centers on the claim that defendant was liable for the death, under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was not liable as the accident did not occur within the scope of the employee'

City of Laredo v.  Montano - Texas Supreme Court Facts :  The relevant portion of this case dealing with attorney's fees centered around an attorney who sought to prove up his attorney's fees at trial almost exclusively based upon his testimony.  At trial, the attorney testified that he had worked for approximately 226 weeks on the case, with a “conservative” estimate of 6 hours per week.  Based on his estimates, he calculated his attorney's fees in the amount of $339,000.  Although the attorney testified at trial as to the work he had done, he did not keep time records nor did he have any invoices, bills, or other tangible evidence to establish the attorney's fees he sought.  The only tangible evidence he could point to were the "thousands and thousands of pages that were accumulated in this case."   The City of Laredo argued that there was insufficient evidence presented by the attorney to prove up the attorney's fees he sought and emphas

In the Matter of Deborah Sagal-Cotler v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, et al. In the Matter of Josephine Thomas v. New York City Department of Education, et al. Both cases were ruled upon by the New York Court of Appeals Facts:   Both petitioners were paraprofessionals employed in New York City public schools who had been sued by students who alleged that the petitioners had hit them.   Both petitioners did not dispute that their actions, regarding corporal punishment of the students, violated a Rule of the Board of Regents which prohibited corporal punishment.   When both petitioners asked the City of New York to defend them, the city refused on the grounds that the petitioners actions precluded them from having the City pay for their defense.   The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to a defense paid for by the City under Education Law § 3028.   This section provided for a defense paid for by the City when a compl