![]() Following prolonged litigation and discovery disputes, Exeter moved 1 Judge King concurs in the judgment. Exeter removed the case to federal court. Le sued Exeter in state court for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, quantum meruit, violations of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, and violations of federal law. The board determined that the fair market value of the PIUs was $0.00. At this point, Enzo provided Le with a call notice, seeking to exercise the option to purchase Le’s earned PIUs. ![]() The PIU Agreement provided that the board would conclusively determine the fair market value of PIUs in the event of a call. ![]() Approximately eight months after Le started working at Exeter, he executed a PIU Agreement and received PIUs. At Exeter, Le participated in an Executive Team pro ts interest pool, which entitled him to compensation in the form of Pro ts Interest Units (PIUs)-that is, an equity interest in Enzo (Exeter’s parent company). Le was later presented with such an agreement but did not sign it. When Exeter hired him, Le signed an Employment Agreement that contemplated he would have the option to enter a severance and noncompete agreement. 1 I After leaving a previous employer, Lennox, Le began working for Exeter as the Chief Human Resources O cer and Executive Vice President. 20-10377 this record-three-quarters of which is troublingly sealed from the public- we AFFIRM summary judgment in favor of Exeter. On appeal, Le argues that the district court improperly excluded certain evidence and erred in granting summary judgment against him. ![]() The district court granted summary judgment for Exeter. Willett, Circuit Judge: After being red, Bihn Hoa Le sued Exeter Finance Corporation and Exeter’s parent company, Enzo Parent, L.L.C, for breach of contract, fraud, and quantum meruit. 3:15-CV-3839 Before King, Elrod, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 20-10377 Binh Hoa Le, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus Exeter Finance Corporation Enzo Parent, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees. The court urged litigants and the court's judicial colleagues to zealously guard the public's right of access to judicial records.Ĭase: 20-10377 Document: 00515768605 Page: 1 Date Filed: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED MaLyle W. The court noted that three-quarters of the record in this case was sealed from the public and that the public's right of access to judicial proceedings is fundamental. The court also concluded that the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's contract claim, based on the Profits Interest Units Agreement, failed as a matter of law the district court correctly concluded that, absent evidence of a valid severance agreement, plaintiff's breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law the district court properly adjudicated plaintiff's fraud claims as a matter of law and the district court correctly determined that plaintiff's conduct in connection with the transactions before the district court was inequitable, precluding any equitable remedy. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and plaintiff abandoned his remaining arguments challenging the exclusion of his evidence. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Exeter and Exeter's parent company, Enzo, in an action brought by plaintiff, a former employee, for breach of contract, fraud, and quantum meruit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |