Defendants and Attorneys at Freund, Freeze & Arnold and Boehl Stopher
& Graves, LLP Cited Vacated Opinion and Misrepresented Precedent
LOUISVILLE, Ky.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–lt;a href=”https://twitter.com/hashtag/employmentlaw?src=hash” target=”_blank”gt;#employmentlawlt;/agt;–Pinnacle
Surety, a professional surety bond agency, today announced that in a recent
ruling, a magistrate judge chastised the defendants for citing a
vacated opinion and misrepresenting precedent. The judge ruled in
Pinnacle’s favor in a motion against Manion Stigger, LLP, Cooper &
Elliott, LLC, G. Bruce Stigger and Rex H. Elliott regarding the bond
agency’s ongoing breach of fiduciary duty case against the law firms and
attorneys.
Stigger and Elliot are represented by attorneys at Freund, Freeze &
Arnold and Boehl Stopher & Graves, LLP. In the ruling the judge stated
that the defendants and their attorneys “cited a Sixth Circuit opinion
which hardly supports their stated proposition” and “a Fifth Circuit
opinion without disclosing that it is vacated.”
The defendants asserted that documents and emails in and outside the
possession of Pinnacle Surety were privileged. The judge ruled against
the law firms while noting that the defendants misrepresented precedent
to the court.
In the ruling, Judge Colin H. Lindsay said of the defendants: “A dearth
of on-point case law is no excuse for misrepresenting precedent to the
Court.”
According to the original lawsuit filed in 2016, Manion Stigger and
Cooper & Elliott, LLC secretly assisted two employees against Pinnacle
while the bond firm was still represented by the same attorneys.
In 2013, Pinnacle hired Manion Stigger and Cooper & Elliott to represent
the company in a civil lawsuit brought by a third party regarding the
employment of Todd Loehnert and Brian Ayres. That case was resolved with
the third party; Loehnert and Ayres continued working for Pinnacle; and
the attorneys were paid by Pinnacle.
The original lawsuit states that “clearly during their representation of
Pinnacle, defendants acted directly and materially adverse to Pinnacle
by encouraging and assisting Pinnacle’s employees . . . to prematurely
breach their three-year employment agreement with Pinnacle.”
The lawsuit now seeks damages for breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding
and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, intentional interference with
an employment agreement, and civil conspiracy.
The amended complaint is available here
and at www.LawsuitPressRelease.com.
Contacts
John P. David
888-859-6637
[email protected]
