Serricchio v. Wachovia Securities
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
658 F.3d 169 (2011)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Michael Serricchio (plaintiff) was a financial advisor earning more than $75,000 per year in commissions at Wachovia Securities LLC (Wachovia) (defendant). Serricchio was also a United States Air Force reservist and was called to active duty in the wake of September 11, 2001. Serricchio and his business partner, Joseph Zinicola, agreed that during Serricchio’s service, Zinicola would manage Serricchio’s accounts with another partner, Frank Murgalo. Wachovia discharged Zinicola in April 2003 because of a compliance violation, and Zinicola took some of the accounts he had managed with Serricchio to a new employer. Shortly thereafter, Murgalo resigned, and the rest of Serricchio’s accounts were reassigned to other Wachovia advisors. Serricchio was honorably discharged in October 2003 and in December 2003 requested reinstatement in a letter to Wachovia sent through Serricchio’s attorney. After a series of negotiations, Wachovia offered to pay Serricchio a monthly draw of $2,000 while he rebuilt his book of business. Serricchio filed suit against Wachovia under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). A jury returned a verdict in favor of Serricchio. The district court denied Wachovia’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), and Wachovia appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pooler, 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.