Johnson v. Nextel Communications Inc.
1:07-cv-08473
| S.D.N.Y. | Mar 25, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Dymkowski, Long-Correa, and Waters) were represented by law firm Leeds, Morelli & Brown (LMB) in employment discrimination claims against Nextel.
- LMB and Nextel negotiated a Dispute Resolution Settlement Agreement (DRSA) that set up a three-phase alternative dispute process (ADR) for 587 employees' claims; Nextel agreed to pay LMB attorney and consultancy fees.
- Plaintiffs alleged fee arrangements created an unwaivable conflict of interest, shifting LMB's loyalty to Nextel and resulting in inadequate representation and lower settlement amounts.
- Plaintiffs each settled their claims via the ADR process, and later sought damages on tort theories against Nextel only; claims against LMB were dismissed.
- The present motion is for summary judgment on three New Jersey tort claims: tortious interference, aiding/abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference with contract | Nextel's payment to LMB was a "bribe" causing LMB to breach its retainer agreements and harm plaintiffs | No intentional interference, no breach, no damages, and fee arrangements fully disclosed and consented to | No evidence of intentional interference, breach, or damages; summary judgment for Nextel |
| Aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty | Nextel helped LMB breach by arranging conflicted fee payments, compromising representation | No underlying breach; LMB disclosed arrangements, provided comprehensive representation | No evidence of breach, assistance, or damages; claim dismissed |
| Conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty | Nextel conspired with LMB to deprive plaintiffs of loyal legal representation | No evidence of agreement or underlying breach; only speculation | No actionable conspiracy or damages; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (N.J. 1989) (defining requirements for tortious interference under NJ law)
- Nostrame v. Santiago, 213 N.J. 109 (N.J. 2013) (setting out elements of tortious interference)
- State, Dept. of Treasury, Div. of Inv. ex rel. McCormac v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l., Inc., 387 N.J. Super. 469 (App. Div. 2006) (outlining aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty)
- Banco Popular North America v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161 (N.J. 2005) (defining elements of civil conspiracy)