310-396-7714|info@HelmerFriedman.com
FacebookYouTubeMastodonLinkedInInstagramRedditTumblrTribelSubstack Notes

Court of Appeal Rules Against Anthem/Elevance Health Attempt to Force Arbitration

Helmer Friedman LLP Defeats Anthem/Elevance Health’s Effort to Force Employee to Arbitrate

October 25, 2023 (Los Angeles, CA) – In a significant legal development, the California Court of Appeal has determined that Anthem Health, now operating as Elevance Health, cannot compel arbitration in the case involving long-term employee Mr. Gregory Antoniono. This ruling (Case B327595) from the Second Appellate District, Division 3, paves the way for the proceedings to continue in the Los Angeles County Superior Court before a judge and jury instead of an arbitrator.

“After litigating this issue for the better part of two years, we are pleased that the Court of Appeal reached what we believe to be the correct decision. When an individual is forced to arbitrate, they are giving up their fundamental constitutional right to a jury trial. As with all constitutional rights, we should analyze any waiver with an extremely high level of scrutiny.”

Following nearly two years of legal proceedings, the Los Angeles County Superior Court rejected Anthem/Elevance’s motion to enforce arbitration in March 2023 (Case No. 22STCV26362). The court ruled that the company failed to demonstrate that Mr. Antoniono agreed to arbitrate his claims, as he had not been provided the opportunity to review the arbitration policy terms when he signed his offer letter. Furthermore, the company’s intranet, where the policy was purportedly accessible, explicitly stated that the policies were not intended to form a legally binding contract.

The Court of Appeal upheld the court’s decision, emphasizing that Anthem/Elevance did not meet the “minimum” requirements for establishing an implied agreement to arbitrate. According to the Court, employers must “clearly communicate to the employee both that assenting to arbitration is a condition of employment and what the terms of the employer’s policy are.”

Anthem/Elevance’s argument that Mr. Antoniono implicitly agreed by signing an offer letter referencing the arbitration policy was dismissed due to the policy’s lack of attachment or accessible link. The Court highlighted that the arbitration policy was buried among numerous other non-contractual policies on the intranet.

Commenting on the decision, Gregory D. Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP, representing Mr. Antoniono, remarked, “After litigating this issue for the better part of two years, we are pleased that the Court of Appeal reached what we believe to be the correct decision. When an individual is forced to arbitrate, they are giving up their fundamental constitutional right to a jury trial. As with all constitutional rights, we should analyze any waiver with an extremely high level of scrutiny.”

About Helmer Friedman LLP

Helmer Friedman LLP advocates for employees’ rights in matters involving discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination and provides aggressive and innovative representation to safeguard clients’ rights.

Contact Information

Gregory D. Helmer
Helmer Friedman LLP
Phone: 310-396-7714
Email: ghelmer@helmerfriedman.com

2024-10-26T04:43:30-08:00October 24th, 2024|Case Update, employment law, Front Page News, Greg Helmer|Comments Off on Court of Appeal Rules Against Anthem/Elevance Health Attempt to Force Arbitration
Read More

Lawsuit Alleges Grindr Sold User Info Including Sexual Orientation and Location

Grindr allegedly sold a prominent Catholic priest’s sensitive personal information, causing him to lose his position as the general secretariat for the National Conference of U.S. bishops.

July 18, 2024 (Los Angeles) – Jeffrey Burrill subscribed to the Grindr app, which collected his sensitive personal data, including information about sexual orientation and location. Grindr failed to protect Burrill’s sensitive information and knowingly allowed it to be sold to third parties, according to a lawsuit filed by Helmer Friedman LLP and The Carr Law Group (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 24STCV17896).

Grindr’s failure to protect sensitive personal data and its subsequent sale to third parties has caused immeasurable harm. Consumers deserve transparency and security,
especially when dealing with such private information.

Grindr, based in California, owns and operates a social networking application under federal trademark registration number 3873295. The application provides online chat rooms for social networking on the Internet and mobile devices, as well as computer dating services through adult personal advertisements and social networking on the Internet and mobile devices. Described as the “largest social networking app for gay, bi, trans, and queer people,” Grindr claims to have created a safe space to connect with the queer community.

In 2017, Mr. Burrill subscribed to Grindr, a gay social networking application. Grindr collected sensitive personal data from Mr. Burrill, including information about his sexual orientation and physical location. Between 2017 and 2021, the Catholic Laity and Clergy for Renewal (CLCR), a private foundation, purchased Mr. Burrill’s Grindr personal data and shared it with a publication called The Pillar.

In July 2021, The Pillar published an article using the Grindr data purchased from CLCR, outing Mr. Burrill and making false and lurid claims about him. This resulted in significant damage to Mr. Burrill’s reputation, leading to his resignation from the position of General Secretary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and causing him significant financial and emotional distress.

Despite Grindr’s assurance of protecting customers’ personal data from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure, they failed to disclose the steps taken to protect sensitive personal data. This was aggravated by the former Chief Privacy Officer’s revelations that Grindr was aware of its failure to protect sensitive personal data but chose not to address the issue due to a lack of resources. When the former Chief Privacy Officer raised concerns about privacy violations, they were met with pushback and disdain from Grindr.

For more information about this lawsuit, please contact Gregory D. Helmer (at 310-396-7714 ext. 102  or ghelmer@helmerfriedman.com). James C.D. Carr (at 310-919-8057 or james@carrlawgrp.com)

Similarly, if you are a witness or have information that would be relevant to the claims of Mr. Burrill, please contact Mr. Helmer and/or Mr. Carr.

DOCUMENTS:

MEDIA COVERAGE:

2024-08-06T07:24:31-08:00July 22nd, 2024|California's Unfair Competition Law, Case Update, Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), fraud, Front Page News, Greg Helmer|Comments Off on Lawsuit Alleges Grindr Sold User Info Including Sexual Orientation and Location
Read More

Disability Discrimination, Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Anthem Blue Cross

19-Year Veteran Employee of Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health Alleges that Healthcare Companies Fired Him During His Painful Recovery from Life-Threatening Heart Bypass Surgery

June 27, 2024 (BEVERLY HILLS, California) – Mr. Luis Ortiz, a long-term employee in the underwriting department of Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health, has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was discriminated against and harassed based on his medical condition and disability when the company fired him during his difficult recovery from open-heart surgery. Elevance Health, Inc., Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Blue Cross of California, the Elevance Health Companies of California, and several other related entities are named as defendants. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 24STCV15952). The Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman LLP announced the filing today.

Plaintiff Luis Ortiz, a California resident, alleges that on February 17, 2022, after having undergone a coronary angiogram, he was immediately admitted to the hospital and underwent triple bypass surgery. His post-surgery recovery, he alleges, was difficult and rife with complications, including debilitating pain in his chest and back and radiating throughout his entire body.

It is illegal to discriminate against employees who are recovering from surgery, and it is disappointing to see these allegations arise in the healthcare industry – the very industry that people rely on for their health and well-being.

Mr. Ortiz alleges that he dutifully kept his employers updated and consistently submitted medical authorization to support his leave of absence. In August 2022, his doctors authorized an extension of his leave for six months. But, in an email of October 7, 2022, he was told by his supervisor, Ms. Millet-Riley, that his leave was unapproved. According to the complaint, she threatened that he would be terminated for “abandoning his job” if he did not contact her within three business days. Mr. Ortiz alleges that he contacted her immediately on the same day and told her that he was not abandoning his job and intended to return to work as soon as his doctors authorized him to do so. Nonetheless, on October 10, 2022, the complaint asserts that the defendants fired Mr. Ortiz for “job abandonment,” an explanation that Mr. Ortiz contends is a pretext for discrimination and unlawful conduct.

Mr. Ortiz further alleges that, after being fired, he applied for a vacant position in underwriting with Anthem Blue Cross of California (for which he was eminently qualified) but was denied that position. Mr. Ortiz alleges that such conduct was discriminatory and retaliatory. Commenting on California law, Gregory D. Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP said, “It is illegal to discriminate against employees who are recovering from surgery, and it is disappointing to see these allegations arise in the healthcare industry – the very industry that people rely on for their health and well-being.”

For more information, contact Gregory D Helmer, Helmer Friedman LLP, (310) 396-7714 x102, ghelmer@helmerfriedman.com.

DOCUMENTS:

MEDIA COVERAGE:

2024-10-24T11:13:57-08:00June 27th, 2024|Case Update, disability discrimination, Front Page News, Greg Helmer, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Disability Discrimination, Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Anthem Blue Cross
Read More

Cal State University Sued for Gender Discrimination

Lawsuit Accuses California State University, President Tomás Morales, and Dean Jake Zhu of Equal Pay Act Violations, Gender Discrimination, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Other Illegal Behavior

Courtney Abrams, PC & Helmer Friedman LLP Represent Current California State University Employees Accusing CSU Of Illegal Employment Practices

March 14, 2023 (Los Angeles, California) – On this 2023 Equal Pay Day, Courtney Abrams of Courtney Abrams, PC & Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP announced today the filing of a lawsuit against the Board of Trustees of the California State University (“CSU”), the President of CSU’s San Bernardino campus, Tomás Morales, and the Dean of the Palm Desert Campus of CSU, San Bernardino, Jake Zhu.

The lawsuit, Clare Weber & Anissa Rogers v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (the State of California acting in its higher education capacity); Tomás Morales, an individual; and Jake Zhu, an individual (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCV05549), alleges that CSU has a well-known pattern and practice of violating California’s Equal Pay Act and otherwise engaging in gender discrimination against and harassing its female employees.

The lawsuit further alleges that CSU resorts to an entrenched practice of silencing its victims if they complain, including forcing them to resign by threatening their careers with ruin (like Plaintiff Anissa Rogers), or, if they refuse, simply firing them (like Plaintiff Clare Weber).

Unfortunately, women’s individual stories have often included the reality that their contributions have been undervalued, underpaid, and overlooked. Pay discrimination is a stark example of that reality […] When a woman is paid less than a man for doing the same work […] it not only affects her weekly paycheck but also her long-term economic security.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Weber, who was the then-Vice Provost at CSU’s San Bernardino campus, complained to Defendant CSU and President Tomás Morales that female Vice Provosts, including herself, were being paid less than their male counterparts. The lawsuit alleges that Dr. Weber specifically protested gender discrimination, including complaining that (1) she had learned that she was not making the same amount of money as her male counterparts in the CSU system and (2) she was one of the lowest-paid despite her large portfolio of assignments. According to the lawsuit, Dr. Weber requested a raise to address the disparity in pay between her and her male colleagues. Indeed, as the EEOC recognized today, allegations like Dr. Weber’s are all too common:

“Unfortunately, women’s individual stories have often included the reality that their contributions have been undervalued, underpaid, and overlooked. Pay discrimination is a stark example of that reality . . . When a woman is paid less than a man for doing the same work . . . it not only affects her weekly paycheck, but also her long-term economic security.”

See “A Message from EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows for 2023 Equal Pay Day and Women’s History Month,”.

The lawsuit likewise alleges that Dr. Rogers, who was the then-Associate Dean at the Palm Desert Campus at CSU, San Bernardino, complained to Dean Jake Zhu that male employees were permitted to harass female employees and that Defendant CSU “needed to do better to disrupt sexism.” According to the lawsuit, Defendant Zhu, who had subjected Dr. Rogers and other female employees to a barrage of sex harassment, instructed Dr. Rogers to just “train the men.”

male employees were permitted to harass female employees, and Defendant CSU ‘needed to do better to disrupt sexism.’

The lawsuit alleges that, thereafter, in identical conversations with both Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers, current Provost of CSU, San Bernardino, Rafik Mohamed, directed both Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers to lie to their colleagues and students and say they were “resigning.” According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mohamed was abundantly clear with both Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers: If you do not resign, you will be fired.

The lawsuit also alleges that multiple current and former employees have corroborated the conduct alleged to be illegal, including one current executive as attesting:

“President Morales is so deeply hostile to and regularly discriminates against female employees who work for him, there is a culture of fear at California State University. And unfortunately, President Morales has a well-known practice of forcing female employees to “resign” or “retire” if they disagree with him or complain. He quickly turns on female employees who report workplace concerns to him and engages in what I can only call a “campaign” to discredit them and remove the female employees.”(Emphasis added)

According to the lawsuit, CSU Chancellor Jolene Koester has been known to have “coached” female employees about how best to endure well-documented sex harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by high-ranking male employees (while doing nothing to stop it).

President Morales is so deeply hostile to and regularly discriminates against female employees who work for him that there is a culture of fear at California State University. And unfortunately, President Morales has a well-known practice of forcing female employees to “resign” or “retire” if they disagree with him or complain. He quickly turns on female employees who report workplace concerns to him and engages in what I can only call a “campaign” to discredit them and remove the female employees.

The lawsuit alleges that after Dr. Weber was fired, Defendant CSU offered multiple conflicting explanations for her firing – none of which were true.

The lawsuit filed by Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers follows on the heels of a May 2022 study released by the California State University Employees Union finding that the current pay structure within CSU has resulted in white women being paid roughly five percent less than white men, men of color making about three percent less, and women of color having a nearly seven percent disparity in pay when compared to white men. See CSUEU Salary Study.

Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers are represented by Courtney Abrams, PC, and Helmer Friedman, LLP, California law firms that represent employees and other individuals seeking to vindicate their rights.

Speaking about the lawsuit, Courtney Abrams stated, “California law is clear: it is illegal for employers to subject female employees to inferior and hostile working conditions and pay them less than their male counterparts.”

Andrew H. Friedman likewise stated: “California law is abundantly clear that an employer – not even the State of California – may retaliate against an employee because she complains about gender discrimination and harassment.”

Current and former employees of California State University who wish to report their work experiences or learn more about the lawsuit should complete a case evaluation form and/or visit https://courtneyabramslaw.com/csu-sued-for-gender-discrimination-and-sex-harassment.

For more information about this lawsuit, please contact Courtney Abrams (at 310-490-1547 or courtney@courtneyabramslaw.com) or Andrew H. Friedman (at 310-396-7714 x. 106 or afriedman@helmerfriedman.com).

Similarly, if you are a witness or have information that would be relevant to the claims of Dr. Weber or Dr. Rogers, please contact Mr. Friedman and/or Ms. Abrams.

DOCUMENTS:

MEDIA COVERAGE:

2023-06-21T09:30:56-08:00March 14th, 2023|Case Update, discrimination, Front Page News, gender discrimination, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, retaliation, sexual harassment|Comments Off on Cal State University Sued for Gender Discrimination
Read More

Mott MacDonald, Daniel Tempelis Sued for Discrimination

Lawsuit Accuses Mott MacDonald Family of Companies and Daniel Tempelis of Age, Disability, Race & National Origin Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, and Other Unlawful Behavior

 

Helmer Friedman LLP Represents Former Mott MacDonald Employee Accusing the Mott MacDonald Family of Companies of Illegal Employment Practices

October 26, 2021 (Los Angeles, California) – Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, announced today the filing of a lawsuit against the Mott MacDonald Family of companies – Mott MacDonald Holdings, Inc., Mott MacDonald Group, Inc., and Mott MacDonald, Inc.

California law is clear: it is illegal for employers to fire, demote or otherwise retaliate against an employee because of that employee’s age, race or national origin or because that employee complains about unlawful activity.

The lawsuit, Abbas Sizar v. Mott MacDonald Holdings, Inc., Mott MacDonald Group, Inc., and Mott MacDonald, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCV39343), alleges that the Mott MacDonald defendants, in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Code, discriminated against, harassed, and retaliated against Mr. Sizar, among other claims. More specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Mott MacDonald defendants fired Mr. Sizar and other non-white and older employees and replaced them with younger less experienced, and less qualified white males.

Speaking about the lawsuit, Mr. Sizar’s attorney, Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, stated, “California law is clear: it is illegal for employers to fire, demote or otherwise retaliate against an employee because of that employee’s age, race or national origin or because that employee complains about unlawful activity.”

If you are a witness or have information that would be relevant to the claims of Mr. Sizar or wish to know more about the lawsuit, please contact Andrew H. Friedman (at 310-396-7714 x. 106 or afriedman@helmerfriedman.com).

Helmer Friedman LLP, a Beverly Hills, California-based law firm, is dedicated to assisting people with a wide array of legal problems. The law firm was founded in order to provide its clients (people; not corporations) with the type of world-class legal representation frequently offered by large corporate law firms to large corporations in a more personalized and less formal environment.

Helmer Friedman LLP is a leader in providing clients with legal representation across a wide spectrum of practice areas, including all aspects of employment law, consumer fraud and protection, product liability, false advertising, catastrophic personal injury, and wrongful death, civil rights violations, antitrust, privacy violations, nursing home neglect, and elder abuse, housing violations, defamation, medical malpractice, sexual harassment by doctors and other types of professionals, entertainment and sports representation.

DOCUMENTS:

2024-10-29T10:47:04-08:00October 26th, 2021|Case Update, employment law, Front Page News|Comments Off on Mott MacDonald, Daniel Tempelis Sued for Discrimination
Read More

Helmer Friedman LLP Files Lawsuit On Behalf of Cancer Survivor Suing Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care for Disability Harassment, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination

November 21, 2019 – Today, Helmer Friedman LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of a former Pharmacist for Torrance, California-based Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care alleging that the Company engaged in disability harassment and discrimination. A copy of the lawsuit — Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV41854 – can be view here.

Among other things, plaintiff Dr. John L. Bowie alleges that, following a humiliating and degrading campaign of retaliation and harassment, he was fired for being a disabled stage IV cancer survivor. Dr. Bowie, a Pharmacist with over twenty years of practice treating and saving patients’ lives, alleges that the company and some of its employees relentlessly bullied and harassed him after learning that he was a survivor of colon cancer with digestive disabilities. In order to embarrass Dr. Bowie for his medical condition, some of his coworkers allegedly told him he had a “foul odor” and that he “stank,” placed advertisements for adult diapers on his desk, filled his office with the overpowering scent of air freshener, and giggled and smirked at his distress. The lawsuit further alleges that after Dr. Bowie was repeatedly and rudely confronted by Human Resources representatives with the false accusation that his digestive disability and colon cancer made him smell, the Company escalated their harassment to a truly shocking level, demanding that he begin to wear an adult diaper to work. According to the lawsuit, when Dr. Bowie, feeling bullied and in fear for his job, complied with this ridiculous and degrading request, a representative for Human Resources then forced him to show her his diaper by pulling down his pants for her and lifting it out of his waistband. Dr. Bowie alleges that he was emotionally devastated by his treatment at the hands of his coworkers.

Dr. Bowie’s Complaint For Damages alleges that he repeatedly asked the company to provide him a reasonable accommodation for his disability and to address the severe harassment he was experiencing. Instead, the lawsuit alleges, rather than taking remedial action or accommodating him, the company abruptly fired him just days after his most recent request for accommodation and help.

The lawsuit also alleges that Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care fired Dr. Bowie because he made complaints to the company that it was not complying with various guidelines to ensure the safety and efficacy of the prescription drugs that it was compounding and that the company was sending out prescriptions for large
amounts of IV diphenhydramine.

Commenting about the lawsuit, Andrew H. Friedman, founding partner of Helmer Friedman LLP, stated: “California employers need to be aware that the law of this state requires them to take reasonable steps to accommodate employees with disabilities and medical conditions so that they have the same access to employment as anyone else.”

Helmer Friedman LLP is seeking witnesses who may be aware of the manner in which Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care treated Dr. Bowie and/or other employees with disabilities.

Documents:

Complaint for Damages – Helmer Friedman LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of a former Pharmacist for Torrance, California-based Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care alleging that the Company engaged in disability harassment and discrimination.

Press Release – Cancer Survivor Suing Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care for Disability Harassment, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination.

Media Coverage:

2019-11-26T09:11:54-08:00November 21st, 2019|Case Update, Front Page News|Comments Off on Helmer Friedman LLP Files Lawsuit On Behalf of Cancer Survivor Suing Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care for Disability Harassment, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination
Read More

Helmer Friedman LLP defeats Landlord’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

This morning, Helmer Friedman LLP defeated a landlord’s motion to dismiss a familial status discrimination lawsuit (Pitts v. Financial Management Co. – Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: BC644978).  In the underlying lawsuit, a Los Angeles area couple, Karen Pitts and Michael Pitts sued their landlord (defendants Actress Frieda Rentie and Financial Management Company), alleging after Ms. Rentie learned that Karen Pitts was pregnant and she and her husband Michael were expecting their second child, Ms. Rentie gave them a “60 day notice to quit”, which terminated their lease. In response, the defendants filed a motion – called an anti-SLAPP motion – pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 to dismiss the Pitts’ lawsuit, contending that it was frivolous litigation and that it arose from the defendant’s “60 day notice to quit” which was an exercise of their right to petition the government. The Pitts, represented by Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, argued that the Pitts’ FEHA discrimination lawsuit arose from the landlord’s allegedly discriminatory eviction and not any protected activity. At the hearing on the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, the Honorable Judge Ernest M. Hiroshige (Department 54 of the Los Angeles Superior Court) denied the motion filed in response to the plaintiffs’ FEHA discrimination lawsuit. In his decision, Judge Hiroshige agreed with the arguments made by Mr. Friedman: “Defendant Frieda Rentie, individually and dba Financial Management Company, moves to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425. 16). Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ action arises out of service of the 60-day notice to quit- a necessary prerequisite to filing an unlawful detainer actions- and thus falls under the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute. The Court disagrees . . .  Plaintiffs’ are not challenging the eviction procedure but the eviction decision itself. Thus, while service of the 60-day notice is arguably a protected activity, Plaintiffs’ complaint does not arise from this activity and thus is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.”    You can read Defendants’ motion here, the Pitts’ opposition here, and the Court’s decision here.

2024-05-31T07:17:49-08:00May 16th, 2017|Case Update, discrimination|Comments Off on Helmer Friedman LLP defeats Landlord’s Anti-SLAPP Motion
Read More

Ninth Circuit Rules In Favor of Helmer Friedman LLP

This afternoon, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Helmer Friedman LLP’s clients Crystal Monique Lightfoot and Beverly Hollis-Arrington (Case No. 10-56068).

Following the victory of Helmer Friedman LLP in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2017 on behalf of Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Hollis-Arrington, Fannie Mae filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit to, in effect, disregard the Supreme Court’s decision, and, instead, to affirm the District Court’s dismissal of their case.  After extensive briefing, the Ninth Circuit denied Fannie Mae’s Motion. Instead, the Ninth Circuit granted the relief that Helmer Friedman LLP had requested and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to vacate its prior judgment in favor of Fannie Mae and then remand the case back to California State Court.

“As with the Supreme Court’s decision, this decision from the Ninth Circuit is also complete vindication for our clients who have argued for years that their lawsuit against Fannie Mae should be heard in the California state courts and not in federal court,” commented Andrew H. Friedman of Beverly Hills-based Helmer Friedman LLP.

A copy of Fannie Mae’s Motion can be found here.

Helmer Friedman LLP’s Opposition to Fannie Mae’s Motion can be found here.

Fannie’s Mae’s Reply can be found here.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision can be found here.

2018-08-23T15:57:49-08:00March 20th, 2017|Case Update, Front Page News|Comments Off on Ninth Circuit Rules In Favor of Helmer Friedman LLP
Read More

Helmer Friedman LLP Takes Case To Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

Greg Helmer, Andrew Friedman, Beverly Hollis-Arrington take on Fannie Mae.

Washington, D.C. – Helmer Friedman LLP Takes Case To Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

Gregory D. Helmer and Andrew H. Friedman outside the U.S. Supreme Court with their client, Beverly Hollis-Arrington — one of the most courageous people we know. Fannie Mae foreclosed on her home in 2002 but she stood up and took them all the way to the Supreme Court (with a little help from Helmer Friedman LLP).

2018-08-17T09:24:57-08:00November 8th, 2016|Case Update|Comments Off on Helmer Friedman LLP Takes Case To Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.
Read More

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Petition Certiorari

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Petition For Certiorari Filed By Helmer Friedman LLP

Helmer Friedman LLP is very pleased to announce that this morning the Supreme Court granted our petition for certiorari in Crystal Monique Lightfoot, et al. v.  Fannie Mae, Cendant Mortgage Corporation, dba PHH Mortgage, et al.  Case No. 10-56068.  According to the Supreme Court, approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari are filed each Term and the Court grants and hears oral argument in merely 80 of those cases – about 1%.  Given the slim chance that any petition for certiorari will be granted, founding Helmer Friedman LLP partners, Gregory D. Helmer and Andrew H. Friedman, exclaimed: “We were thrilled a month ago when the U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief with the Court recommending that our petition be granted. This morning, we are beyond ecstatic.”

At issue in the Lightfoot v. Fannie Mae  case is whether individual homeowners who have been wrongly or fraudulently foreclosed upon by Fannie Mae have the right to sue the mortgage giant in the state courts.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a government-sponsored enterprise (“GSE”) and, since 1968, a publicly traded company. Its brother organization is the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”), better known as Freddie Mac. With the advent of the 2008 housing crisis and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the verge of collapse, the U.S. government was forced to “bail out” the firms in September 2008. Accordingly, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship and fired the firms’ chief executive officers and boards of directors. On Oct 21, 2010 FHFA estimates revealed that the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will likely cost taxpayers $224–360 billion in total, with over $150 billion already provided.

In the Lightfoot v. Fannie Mae  case, two Californians (Crystal Lightfoot and Beverly Hollis-Arrington) involved in a mortgage dispute sued Fannie Mae in California State court. Fannie Mae then removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Fannie Mae’s sole basis of removal was under a belief that its congressionally created charter conferred automatic federal jurisdiction. That statute says Fannie Mae has authority “to sue and be sued, and to complain and defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal.” 12 U.S.C. § 1723a(a) (emphasis added). After removal, Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Hollis-Arrington immediately sought remand from the District Court to California State court arguing Fannie Mae’s charter did not confer automatic federal question jurisdiction. The District Court denied the application to remand. Eventually, Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Hollis-Arrington appealed the district court’s denial of remand decision to the Ninth Circuit.  Initially, the Ninth Circuit affirmed District Court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to remand on the basis that the District Court had removal jurisdiction over state claims filed to circumvent the res judicata impact of a federal judgment. Notably, however, Fannie Mae did not remove the case on that basis. Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit, sua sponte, withdrew its decision and ordered the parties to submit briefing on the issue of whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of Fannie Mae’s federal charter. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit held that Fannie Mae’s federal charter conferred original jurisdiction in the federal courts.  A brief chronology of the proceedings before the U.S. Supreme Court follow:

San Francisco Daily Journal - High Court Article.
2018-08-23T15:48:24-08:00June 28th, 2016|Case Update, Front Page News|Comments Off on U.S. Supreme Court Grants Petition Certiorari
Read More
Toggle Sliding Bar Area
Go to Top