Muriel B. Seymour and David Seymour, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. Summa Vista Cinema, Inc., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees., 817 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1987)
Linked as:
Text
Richard A. Love, Santa Monica, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees-cross-appellants.
Robert A. Holtzman, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellants-cross-appellees.
Before WALLACE, BOOCHEVER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Appellants' petition for rehearing is granted in part and the opinion filed February 6, 1987, 809 F.2d 1385, is amended as follows:
The sentence beginning on page 6, line 17 of the slip opinion [page 1388, 1st col., line 20] beginning with the words "Even absent direct proof ..." should be deleted and replaced with the following:
In any event, Alexander is liable as a controlling person if (1) Alexander had actual power or influence over Shestak, and (2) Alexander was a culpable participant in the alleged illegal activity. Buhler v. Audio Leasing Corp., 807 F.2d 833, 835 (9th Cir.1987). Participation may be proven indirectly by showing that Alexander failed to establish a reasonable system of supervision and control. Id. at 836. In the broker-dealer context presented here, Alexander had actual power over Shestak as his employer and a corresponding duty to supervise him. See Kersh v. General Council, 804 F.2d 546, 550 (9th Cir.1986); Zweig v. Hearst Corp., 521 F.2d 1129, 1134-35 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
The full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc. No active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc (Fed.R.App.P. 35).
In all other respects the petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc is denied.
3 For example, Alexander did not hold regular sales meetings of its account executives or sales people. Shestak did not receive an employee manual or receive any training from Alexander. Moreover, Shestak testified he was unaware of any Alexander policy regarding controls on outside sales and the evidence suggests Alexander did not require written notification of such sales
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Richard L. Zweig and Muriel Bruno, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. the Hearst Corporation, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Jerry Greenfield, Individually and as a Representative of a Class of Allpersons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the Hearst Corporation, Defendant-Appellee., 521 F.2d 1129 (9th Cir. 1975)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,000 Lucille Kersh, Clyde C. Greco, Sr., Helen Greco, Beatrice Silva, Manuel Silva, Marianne Speckman, Russell Speckman, George Viale, Geraldine Viale, Donald C. Westphalen, and Dorothy H. Westphalen, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. the General Council of the Assemblies of God, and Assemblies of God Northern California and Nevada District Council, Defendants-Appellees., 804 F.2d 546 (9th Cir. 1986)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,056 Verne Buhler, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Audio Leasing Corp., a New Hampshire Corporation, Etc., Et Al., Defendants, Anchor National Financial Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant- Appellee. Norma J. Cleveland, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jerden Industries, Inc., a Washington Corporation, Et Al., Defendants, Anchor National Financial Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant- Appellee., 807 F.2d 833 (9th Cir. 1987)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Muriel B. Seymour and David Seymour, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. Summa Vista Cinema, Inc., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees., 809 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1987)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
