John F. Karl, Jr. Attorney at Law

1. Trout v. Ball and Bach v. Ball, C.A. No. 73-55 and C.A. No. 76-1206 (D.D.C.) (Harold H. Greene, J.). Department of the Navy held to have unlawfully discriminated against individual plaintiffs and a class of female professional and technical employees. 517 F.Supp. 873 (1981); relief ordered, 31 FEP Cases 281 (1981); Motion For Reconsideration denied, 28 FEP Cases 658 (1982); modified, 702 F.2d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 1983), Petition For Rehearing And Suggestion For Rehearing En Banc denied; vacated and remanded, 104 S.Ct. 1404 (1984) (Justices Stevens, Brennan and Marshall dissenting).

Second Judgment of Liability entered on remand, 652 F.Supp. 144 (1986); relief ordered, 708 F.Supp. 358 (1988); denial of Motion For Reconsideration Of Reference Of Relief Proceedings To Special Master, 705 F.Supp. 705 (1989).

Interim award of $290,000 in attorney's fees and costs. 702 F.Supp. 3 (1988); appeal dismissed, Petition For Writ Of Mandamus denied, 891 F.2d 332 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (sovereign immunity does not bar award of interim attorney's fees in Title VII litigation against federal government).

Court held that plaintiffs were entitled to payment of award of attorney's fees and costs for individual relief hearings, irrespective of outcome of such hearings. 741 F.Supp. 280 (1990).

Special Master appointed by the Court selected logarithmic regressions and held that regressions could not properly include age or prehire salary as proxies for prehire experience. 53 E.P.D. (CCH) ¶ 39,925 (April 25, 1990). Special Master held that defendants use of March 24, 1972, grade level was not a proper proxy for level of pre-hire experience and that defendants did not properly measure level of pre-hire experience. 56 E.P.D. (CCH) ¶ 40,753 (December 27, 1990).

District Court affirmed the findings of the Special Master that 67 class members were entitled to relief, as well as the Special Master's findings regarding the variables to be used in regressions. The Court ordered defendants to pay back pay and ordered the Department of the Navy to show cause why Rule 11 sanctions should not be imposed for the government's harassing and delaying tactics. 780 F.Supp. 1396 (1991), appeal dismissed (June 2, 1992). Following dismissal of the appeal, defendants paid $670,402.75 in back pay in August 1992.

On November 12, 1992, in response to his Order to Show Cause, Judge Greene held that defendants and their counsel had violated Rule 11, but the imposition of monetary sanctions was unnecessary in view of the resignation of the Secretary of the Navy because of the "Tailhook" scandal. 144 F.R.D. 587.

In March, 1993, defendants paid an additional $368,277.18 in back pay for the period June 1, 1979 through December 31, 1991.

On November 22, 1993, the District Court held a "fairness hearing" and approved settlement of back pay and attorney's fees.

On July 22, 1998, the District Court ordered that defendants pay plaintiffs' pre-November 21, 1991 interest on attorney's fees. On August 12, 1998, the Court awarded pre-November 21, 1991 interest on back pay previously paid to plaintiffs. 2. Canal Refining Co. v. Carl A. Corrallo, et al., C.A. No. 85-1461 (D.D.C.) (Oberdorfer, J.), App. No. 85-5797 (D.C. Cir.). District Court granted Temporary Restraining Order in litigation to enjoin release of confidential information by the Economic Regulatory Administration of the Department of Energy under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Trade Secrets Act, and the Freedom of Information Act; District Court later denied preliminary injunction. 616 F.Supp. 1035 (1985). Court of Appeals granted appellant's Emergency Motion For Stay. Appeal ultimately dismissed by plaintiff.

3. Johnson v. Johnson and Internal Revenue Service, Intervenor, No. 74-316-A (Bnkr. E.D.Va.). Suit for declaratory relief and imposition of a constructive trust on behalf of investors in wine fraud scheme in face of IRS' claim for priority income tax lien on estate. Investors' Motion For Class Certification and Summary Judgment granted. 80 B.R. 791 (1987); aff'd, Mem. Op. (E.D.Va. 1988), appeal dismissed (4th Cir. 1989).

4. Higgins, et al. v. A.P. Moller, et al., No. 85-40118 and No. 86-10629 (129th Jud. Dist. Texas). Suits brought against Danish and Egyptian companies and American affiliate on behalf of oil rig worker from Oklahoma injured in Gulf of Suez who was hired in Texas to work on a joint venture. Suit was brought under Jones Act, Admiralty Law, and for breach of duty to provide disability insurance. Settled for maintenance, cure, medical benefits, 18 months salary and $855,000. 31 ATLA REP. 304 (September 1988).

5. McIntire v. Action Industries, Inc., C.A. No. 83-0198-A (E.D.Va.), MDL Docket No. 544. Litigation arising from Action Industries, Inc.'s 1982 tender offer wherein plaintiffs charged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, RICO, the Pennsylvania Securities Act of 1972, and common law principles related to fraud, negligence, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Motion For Summary Judgment granted in part and denied in part. 572 F.Supp. 846 (E.D.Va. 1983). Settled for approximately one and one-half times the tender offer price paid per share.

6. Walker v. Action Industries, Inc., C.A. No. 84-0720-A (E.D.Va.). Litigation alleging fraud on the market resulting from the publication of the 1982 Tender Offer Statement by defendants and their failure to correct or update the information contained therein. Affirmed, 802 F.2d 703 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 952 (1987), rehearing denied, 107 S.Ct. 1389 (1987).

7. Hamilton v. Air Florida, C.A. 82-0349 (D.D.C.) (Joyce Hens Green, J.), MDL Docket No. 499. Case arising from airplane crash in the District of Columbia on January 13, 1982. 559 F.Supp. 333 (choice of law decision). Settled on favorable terms.

8. Universidad Central del Este v. Bell, C.A. No. 83-1130 (D.D.C.) (June L. Green, J.). Held that Department of Education regulations promulgated pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553 are "arbitrary, capricious, without rational basis, and lacking observance of procedure required by law." Permanent Injunction issued July 15, 1983.

9. Mix v. E.F. Hutton, et al., C.A. No. 85-3108 (D.D.C. 1985). Suit alleging churning by stockbroker in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Commodities Exchange Act, and the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). Settled on favorable terms.

10. Frank v. District of Columbia Commission on Licensure in the Healing Art, D.C. App. No. 85-14. Motion to Review Refusal of Commission on Licensure in the Healing Art to grant or deny a license to petitioner, a graduate of an off-shore medical school. Appeal dismissed and license granted.

11. Bishop v. District of Columbia, 458 A.2d 731 (D.C. App. 1983); rehearing denied, 104 S.Ct. 1933 (1984). On brief for the second round of appeals in successful class action holding District of Columbia commuter tax on nonresident professionals to be unlawful. Held that each professional was required to timely file individual claim for refund.

12. Miskovsky v. The Oklahoma Publishing company, 53 Ok. Bar J. 76 (1982), cert. denied, 103 S.Ct. 235 (1982) (Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justice White joins, dissenting). Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated $1 Million jury verdict for public figure libel plaintiff in decision which raised the question of the extent of constitutionalization of state defamation law by New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and its progeny.

13. Brown v. District of Columbia General Hospital, et al., C.A. No. 8695-85 (D.C. Super.). Wrongful death and survival action alleging medical malpractice in treatment of six-week old infant who died of dehydration. Settled for $225,000.

14. Retivov v. Aina, C.A. No. 88-2817 (D.D.C.) (Sporkin, J.). Action for breach of contract and fraud. Court entered Preliminary Injunction freezing defendant's assets. Settled on favorable terms.

15. May v. Automated Data Management, Inc., C.A. No. 88-1626 (D.D.C.) (Lamberth, J.). Court granted summary judgment in breach of written employment contract litigation and after damages hearing entered judgment in plaintiff's favor for $105,460.75, plus interest. Settled after appeal.

16. Computer Associates International, Inc., et al. v. Pinkerton Computer Consultants, et al., In Chancery No. 118060, Circuit Court, Fairfax County, Virginia. Circuit Court denied plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief seeking to enforce alleged restrictive covenant. Virginia Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' Petition For Review.

17. Blaine v. Onondaga Community College, 57 F.E.P. Cases 800 (N.D.N.Y. 1991). Judgment in favor of plaintiff for back pay, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees in sex discrimination case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where defendants lowered qualifications required for job and disregarded their own affirmative action guidelines.

18. Roberts v. Frank, 58 F.E.P. Cases 1660 (D.D.C. 1992), appeal dismissed. Judgment in favor of plaintiff in race discrimination case brought under Title VII where Court found that decision to deny opportunity for detail to plaintiff was discriminatory and prevented plaintiff from being promoted. Award of back pay, interest, and attorney's fees.

19. Massengale v. The George Washington, University, C.A. No. 89-13005 (D.C. Super. 1992). Action alleging discrimination in compensation and retaliation unlawful under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. Case settled on favorable terms during second trial, after first trial resulted in mistrial with hung jury 11-1 in plaintiff's favor.

20. Magnuson v. Peak Technical Services, Inc. 808 F.Supp. 500 (E.D. Va. 1991). Court held employment agency, common law employer, auto dealership, and manager of auto dealership were "employers" under Title VII. Plaintiff settled with defendants Blalock and Fairfax Imports during trial.

21. Slattery v Ancient Order of Hibernians, C.A. No. 94-1738 RMU (D.D.C.) Represented nonprofit fraternal organization in lawsuit alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice and Court awarded full attorney's fees and costs to defendant under "inherent authority" of the Court.

22. Americaid v. Harmony, CA-C-89-96 (N.J. Chan. Essex) Represented individual defendant in lawsuit for injunction brought to enforce covenant not to compete and alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty. Injunction denied.

23. Baby D v. XYZ Health Maintenance Organization, [Case name and number are confidential pursuant to agreement]. Represented minor child and parents in medical malpractice case arising out of defendants' alleged failure to conduct appropriate prenatal surveillance testing during final weeks of pregnancy and failure to timely perform a C-section. Injury cause by forceps delivery. Settled for $1,800,000.

24. Bonds v. Heyman, C.A. No. 95-0044 (D.D.C.). U.S. District Court issued a preliminary injunction barring the termination in a purported reduction in force of a 40-year federal employee of the Smithsonian Institution with an "Outstanding" performance evaluation. Employee's complaint of race, gender, and age discrimination had been pending for 20 months and awaiting decision on dispositive motions when agency conducted alleged "reorganization." 950 F. Supp. 1202 (1997).

25. Ndongo-Seh v. Doerr, C.A. No. 95-342 NHJ/PJA (D.D.C.) Action brought for fraud, breach of partnership agreement and breach of fiduciary duty. Initially settled for $750,000, plus stock in Cameroonian corporation. C.A. No.96-1234 GK/AK. Second action brought due to defendant's breach of settlement agreement in first lawsuit. Court granted our Motion for Preliminary Injunction and ordered payment of proceeds of property sale into Registry of the Court. Subsequently, court held defendants in contempt of Court for violating the preliminary injunction. Court also awarded attorney's fees and costs incurred by plaintiff in having to file contempt motion and for discovery sanctions. Case ultimately settled for payment of cash and secured interest in real estate.

26. Landise v. Mauro, 725 A.2d 445(D.C. 1998). The fact that plaintiff was not admitted to practice in D.C. does not bar a claim for breach of contract to form a law partnership. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.