L.F.P.IP, LLC v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc., 1:09-cv-00913

This case involves Jimmy Flynt’s Second Amended Counterclaim against Hustler Cincinnati, Inc. and related entities in a dispute with his brother Larry Flynt over Hustler’s business and trust matters.
Jimmy asserts five grounds: an accounting/dissolution of partnership; wrongful termination/promissory estoppel; breach of fiduciary duty; breach of contract to make a will/trust; and fraud/unjust enrichment.
The court previously rejected Jimmy’s partnership claim and ruled in Larry’s favor on trademark infringement; the current motion seeks summary judgment on the counterclaims (Doc. 208).
Jimmy alleges a lifetime/indefinite employment arrangement with Larry, but no written contract exists and the record shows at-will employment with periods of disagreement and withdrawal from Hustler.
The court grants summary judgment for the plaintiffs on all asserted counterclaims, finding no meeting of the minds for a lifetime employment contract, no clear promissory estoppel, no viable public policy wrongful discharge claim, no fiduciary duty arising from the asserted minority ownership or transactions, and no enforceable contract to make a will/trust under California law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a valid implied lifetime employment contract?	Flynt argues Larry promised lifelong employment.	Hustler asserts at-will employment with no mutual assent to permanence.	No; no meeting of the minds; claim fails as a matter of law.
Does promissory estoppel support lifetime employment?	Flynt claims a clear, unambiguous representation of job security.	No clear, unambiguous promise; vague references to long-term employment.	No; factual evidence insufficient to establish promissory estoppel.
Does Jimmy’s public policy wrongful discharge claim survive?	Discharge violated public policy due to unfair treatment.	No identified clear public policy source supporting the claim.	No; lack of clear policy and reliance on general fairness.
Did a fiduciary duty exist between the brothers?	Alleges fiduciary duties from minority ownership and dealings.	No evidence of a fiduciary relationship; no recognized duty from mere family ties.	No; no legally cognizable fiduciary relationship proven.
Is there a enforceable contract to make a will/trust?	Larry promised Jimmy 50% of his trust; breach occurred.	Under California law, contract to make a will cannot be enforced before death; no demonstrable inter vivos transfer.	No; not enforceable before death; no proving evidence of such transfers.

Wright v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 653 N.E.2d 381 (Ohio 1995) (employment-at-will doctrine with exceptions for implied/express contracts or promissory estoppel)
Henkel v. Educ. Research Council of Am., 344 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1976) (permanent or life employment generally terminable at will absent agreement)
Humphreys v. Bellaire Corp., 966 F.2d 1037 (6th Cir. 1992) (employment contract for life requires clear terms; at-will unless specified otherwise)
White v. FCI USA, Inc., 319 F.3d 672 (5th Cir. 2003) (promissory estoppel requires clear, unambiguous representations about job security)
Ross v. Times Mirror, Inc., 665 A.2d 580 (Vt. 1995) (clear public policy limitations for terminating employees; comparative analysis on policy)