Alvarez & Marshal Summary

In preparing to take on a new client Alvarez & Marshal (A&M), we must first examine the prior history of their case. In Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marshal, the plaintiff is seeking damages for being fraudulently induced into leaving his employment at J.P. Morgan and accepting the defendant’s offer of employment based on misrepresentations of the job made to him. Laduzinski claims that instead of managing the “sizable workload” that A&M highlighted in his contract, he was instead asked to hand over his previous client list and terminated thereafter. Given these facts, we must determine if A&M Managing Director Perez’s statements of the job description are a misrepresentation of fact or non-actionable future promises, which would determine if Laduzinski has claim for fraudulent inducement. Furthermore, we need to examine how we can strengthen A&M’s merger clause for the future and if the plaintiff has grounds to claim unjust enrichment – when one party benefits at the expense of the other, or promissory estoppel – the ability to recover damages due to a party’s reasonable reliability on a promise.

An analysis of Judge Scarpulla’s opinion

Had Laduzinski known there was no work to be managed, he would not have left his previous job. Furthermore, as ruled in Vokes v. Arthur Murray, opinion can constitute as material fact if one party has superior knowledge; therefore, as an expert and director of a position he is hiring for, Perez’s descriptions of the job should be taken as fact. A&M was knowledgeable of its true workload and due to its deceptiveness to lure the defendant into signing the contract, they should be held responsible for misrepresentation under the idea that “misrepresentation which is false and known to be false by defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it … injury.” (Lama Holding Co. v. Smith