Articles Posted in Miscellaneous

What happens if you decide to switch attorneys partway through a lawsuit? If you are involved in a lawsuit involving multiple attorneys, you must understand all applicable contracts. Otherwise, you might be involved in a lawsuit with your attorneys, just like Deborah and Mark Kruse found themselves here.

This case involves a lawsuit the Law Office of John D. Sileo (“Sileo”) filed against the Kruses, its former clients, to obtain attorney fees and expenses they claimed they were owed under a contingency fee contract. Sileo also brought a conversion claim against The Law Offices of Allan Berger & Associates (“Berger”), claiming they had misappropriated the applicable attorney fees and expenses.

Before the at-issue lawsuit, Sileo filed a lawsuit for the Kruses related to damage from Deborah’s use of transvaginal mesh. Their lawsuit became part of a related multi-district litigation. Three months after filing the complaint, Sileo and the Kruses signed a contingency fee contract where Sileo would receive 40% of the total amount of any settlement of 50% of whatever was obtained in an appeal. The contract said that while the Kruses could discharge Sileo, Sileo would still be entitled to its fees. 

Imagine you’re in a nail-biting poker game, where every decision could tip the balance between winning and losing. Suddenly, one player reveals a Royal Flush—an unbeatable combination. This tension-filled scene mirrors the legal drama between Greenfield Advisors LLC, a consulting firm from Seattle, and Salas & Co., LC, over a significant unpaid debt. In the legal world, invoking the Full Faith and Credit Clause was Greenfield’s equivalent of a Royal Flush, a powerful play with wide-ranging implications. This legal gambit’s riveting repercussions underline the robust judicial principle of full faith and credit. In the case, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the State District Court’s decision that the judgments against the Appellants were entitled to full faith and credit.

To explain, Greenfield Advisors (“Greenfield”), who were owed a hefty sum of around $700,000 by Salas & Co. (“Salas”), took the dispute to court. Salas, who had hired Greenfield for various legal consulting services, had only paid a fraction of the amount. Greenfield filed a lawsuit, and the legal wrangling kicked off in earnest. The case found itself in the Federal District Court in Washington after Salas requested a transfer. With the dispute in arbitration, Greenfield came out on top, awarded $331,316.48, along with a generous interest rate. The battle, however, was far from over.

In the Louisiana court, Salas argued that the Federal District Court overstepped its jurisdiction, suggesting that the Louisiana court should examine this issue before acknowledging the federal judiciary. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, a crucial element of the U.S. Constitution, became the focal point. Under Louisiana law, any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or any other court is entitled to full faith and credit in this state. LA R.S. 13:4241. A judgment delivered by a court in one state should be respected and enforced by all other states.

Workplaces have rules employees must follow. Termination for violation of these rules must be in good faith. What happens when an employee argues he was fired arbitrarily? The following case helps answer this question. 

Nolvey Stelly was terminated from the Lafayette Police Department  (LPD) for failing to follow orders. An investigation was ordered, and Stelly was suspended for fifteen days. He appealed the suspension, which was affirmed. Stelly then appealed to the trial court, which also upheld his suspension. Before his fifteen-day suspension, Stelly was called to a pre-determination hearing, which he secretly recorded and invited news outlets to attend. The recording and the invitation violated the LPD’s rules on professionalism. A second investigation was then conducted. During the investigation, Stelly was placed on paid administrative leave with strict orders not to engage in off-duty employment. Stelly worked a second job during this time, which prompted a third investigation of his misconduct. Stelly was then terminated. 

Stelly appealed his termination to the Lafayette Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board (Board), which upheld the previous decisions. The trial court also affirmed the decision, which Stelly appealed. Stelly argued the ruling was not in good faith, the penalty was unreasonable, his actions did not violate the LPD’s operating procedures, his actions did not affect his working duties, and his discipline was not on par with his alleged offenses. 

We can all relate to the embarrassment of hitting “reply all” on an email only intended for a smaller audience. Although usually “replying all” just results in embarrassment that eventually subsides, sometimes it can lead to more severe actions, such as losing your job. 

Frith Malin worked as a deputy director at the Orleans Parrish Communications District (“OPCD”), which was responsible for providing 911 services. After she had worked there for eight years, the executive director of the OPCD emailed all employees to inform them one of OPCD’s board members had been named CEO of another organization so that he would be stepping down from OPCD’s board. Malin accidentally hit “reply all,” instead of emailing just OPCD’s executive director criticisms about the departing board member.  

Three days later, Malin was suspended. OPCD conducted an internal investigation, which led to Malin’s eventual termination. A few months before sending the email, Malin had reported the Human Resources manager who investigated commentary related to sexually explicit images on six different occasions. There was no evidence Hobson was aware Malin had reported her, and Hobson was never disciplined. Following her termination, Malin filed a lawsuit against OPCD under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of her First Amendment rights. She also brought claims under Title VII and La. R.S. 23:967, Louisiana’s whistleblower statute. She alleged OPCD had retaliated against her for reporting the Human Resources manager. OPCD filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted. Malin appealed, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing her claims against OPCD.