National Legal and Policy Center v. Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
774 F.Supp.3d 1105
D. Neb.2024Background
- NLPC and its representatives, Peter Flaherty and James Tovar, attended Berkshire Hathaway's May 2023 annual shareholders meeting to present a shareholder proposal advocating for an independent chair.
- Flaherty was removed from the meeting after exceeding time limits and discussing topics beyond the scope of his proposal, specifically mentioning Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein.
- Security personnel instructed Flaherty to leave or face arrest; after refusal, Omaha police arrested him for trespass under local ordinance.
- Plaintiffs brought nine claims, including intentional torts (assault, battery, IIED, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution) and promissory estoppel, against Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett, and two unknown security guards.
- Defendants moved to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim and to strike a declaration submitted post-complaint.
- The court assessed jurisdiction but assumed the amount-in-controversy sufficed, then addressed sufficiency and legal cognizability of the claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trespass as Bar to Torts | Flaherty was a "special invitee" and not a trespasser, thus removal actions were tortious | Flaherty became a trespasser after being told to leave, so ejection was privileged | Flaherty was a trespasser; actions to eject him were privileged—not tortious |
| Battery & Police Conduct | Battery occurred as Flaherty was grabbed without consent by police | Police actions cannot be imputed to Defendants; no agency relationship pleaded | No battery claim; Plaintiffs pleaded no facts to impute officer action to Defendants |
| False Imprisonment | Confinement by police at Defendants’ behest was unlawful | Police lawfully enforced trespass laws; no unlawful restraint | No claim as arrest was for violation of local ordinance, thus lawful |
| Promissory Estoppel | Email instructions to present were a promise justifying reliance | No enforceable promise; attendance was required by SEC rule, not promise | No claim; attendance based on regulatory requirement, not enforceable promise |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (explains plausibility standard for stating a claim)
- Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2009) (discusses complaint sufficiency and Rule 12(b)(6) standards)
- Heitzman v. Thompson, 705 N.W.2d 426 (Neb. 2005) (outlines elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Nebraska)
- Holmes v. Crossroads Joint Venture, 629 N.W.2d 511 (Neb. 2001) (sets out elements of false imprisonment)
- Guzman v. Barth, 552 N.W.2d 299 (Neb. 1996) (defines trespass and removal rights under Nebraska law)
- Bergman by Harre v. Anderson, 411 N.W.2d 336 (Neb. 1987) (states Nebraska law for assault and battery)