Ingwersen v. Planet Group, Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
2011 WL 2623501 (2011)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
David Ingwersen (plaintiff) worked for Planet Group, Inc. (defendant). The parties’ employment agreement allowed Planet to fire Ingwersen only if it had cause. Planet had cause to fire Ingwersen only if he violated the terms and conditions of a related agreement called the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA). Planet was also required to notify Ingwersen in writing of its intent to fire him, explain why he was being fired, and allow him 30 days to cure his conduct. Planet decided to fire Ingwersen without cause, notified him of its decision, and offered him a severance package. Rather than accept the severance package, Ingwersen sued Planet for breach of contract and requested lost wages and benefits. Planet counterclaimed, arguing that after it fired Ingwersen, it discovered that he had breached the SPA. Thus, Planet argued, if it had known of Ingwersen’s breach prior to firing him, his firing would have been for cause. Ingwersen alleged that Planet had learned of his alleged breach of the SPA prior to firing him but had chosen to ignore the breach, and the parties presented conflicting evidence concerning this issue. Planet moved for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss Ingwersen’s lawsuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Camp, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.