Hohlbein v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Company

106 F.R.D. 73 (E.D. Wis. 1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps, all individuals filed their complaint against D. The complaint is framed in twelve discrete counts, each of the four individual plaintiffs articulates three, independent causes of action under parallel theories of false or reckless misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of promise. All Ps claimed that each was purportedly contacted and interviewed D in connection with executive employment positions; that D made material misrepresentations of fact and failed to disclose other material information with respect to those executive positions during the course of the respective interviews; and, Ps were not advised that their employment with the corporate defendant would be subject to a probationary period. Hohlbein was interviewed in February of 1982 for the position of Vice President of Sales. He seeks $211,634.00 in actual damages, together with punitive damages in an amount not less than five times that sum. Howell was interviewed for the position of Vice President of Sales. He seeks actual damages in the amount of $104,070.00 and punitive damages totaling a sum not less than five times that figure. Beckey applied for the position of Regional Claims Manager. He seeks actual damages totaling $102,500.00, together with punitive damages in a sum not less than five times that amount. White interviewed for the position of Training and Educational Specialist. He seeks $143,750.00 and punitive damages totaling not less than five times that figure. The pattern of engagement for each Plaintiff was the same. All claimed they accepted employment with D based on D’s material misrepresentations over such matters as duties, future promotions, relocation expenses, and the failure to inform them of an at will probationary period. D answered the complaint and then filed a motion under Rule 20 (a) and Rule 21 to sever the action into four discrete lawsuits in that none of the claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences,' as prescribed by Rule 20(a) and trying them all at once would likely confuse the jury. Despite their materials differences in the scope of each of their cases, Ps allege a 'course of conduct' and an 'on-going policy of material misrepresentations and fraud.'