Rojo v. Deutsche Bank, 052112 FED2, 10-2999-cv
|Party Name:||ANDRES D. ROJO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK, Defendant-Appellee.[*]|
|Attorney:||FOR APPELLANT: DAVID B. BERNFELD (Jeffrey L. Bernfeld, Joseph R. DeMatteo, on the brief), Bernfeld, DeMatteo & Bernfeld, LLP, New York, New York. FOR APPELLEE: KENNETH J. TURNBULL (Lisa Swanson, on the brief), Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, New York.|
|Judge Panel:||JON O. NEWMAN, CHESTER J. STRAUB, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||May 21, 2012|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of May, two thousand twelve.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Leonard B. Sand and Harold Baer, Jr., Judges).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant Andres D. Rojo sued defendant-appellee Deutsche Bank ("DB") for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, liability in quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, and fraud and misrepresentation. DB moved for summary judgment on all claims. The district court (Leonard B. Sand, Judge) granted the motion as to the breach of contract claims and allowed the remaining claims to proceed to a bench trial (Harold Baer, Judge). After that trial, the district court concluded that DB was not liable to Rojo on those remaining claims.
Rojo argues that the district court erred, as a matter of law, in granting summary judgment because (1) the amendments to Rojo's employment contract were not supported by adequate consideration as determined by New York law; (2) even if valid consideration was present, DB subsequently breached the newly amended...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP