Muriel B. Seymour and David Seymour-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Summa Vista Cinema, Inc.-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Wellemeyer v. Trans Union, LLC (District Court, W.D. Kentucky 2022)
- Goldstine v. FedEx Freight, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Washington 2021)
- Bippes v. Hershey Chocolate U.S.A. (District Court, D. Oregon 1998)
- Ramirez v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Johnson v. Albertsons LLC (District Court, W.D. Washington 2020)
- Nat'l Prods., Inc. v. Arkon Res., Inc. (District Court, W.D. Washington 2018)
- COMMON CAUSE SOUTHERN v. Jones (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2002)
- Common Cause, Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles v. Jones (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2002)
- Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Gates (9th Cir. 1993)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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, 423 U.S. 1025 [96 S.Ct. 469, 46 L.Ed.2d 399] (1975). Alexander does not seriously dispute this, but claims instead there is no evidence to support the allegation that its supervision and training were inadequate. The evidence, however, clearly supports this claim. 3
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.
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.