In this certified class action, the Plaintiffs-Christopher Degroot, Steven Showalter, and all others similarly situated-alleged that their former employer violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”) and the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act (“NWPCA”) when it terminated them without notice and without paying accrued but unused paid time off.
The Defendants are the Plaintiffs’ former employer, Nebraska Book Company, Inc., and Nebraska Book’s parent company, Nebraska Book Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Nebraska Book”). The Plaintiffs also asserted that two other companies, AB Lending SPV I d/b/a Mountain Ridge Capital (“Mountain Ridge”) and Concise Capital Management (“Concise”), are liable based on their financial relationships with Nebraska Book.
Concise acquired 100 percent of the equity in Nebraska Book by 2021, becoming the company’s “accidental owner.” After 2018, Concise did not take “a penny” from Nebraska Book to pay its investors. As owner, Concise had the power to appoint all of the directors on Nebraska Book’s board. During the relevant time, there were three board members, all appointed by Concise. They were Grossman; Gary Shapiro, Nebraska Book’s CEO; and Thomas Krasner, a principal, cofounder, and minority owner of Concise.
The Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude Concise’s expert, Daniel Dooley, under the Daubert standard.
Crisis Management Expert Witness
Daniel F. Dooley has a strong national reputation in crisis management, operational improvement, debt refinancing & restructuring, and C-level positions. He is a frequent speaker at industry conferences and a regular author for industry periodicals. Dooley has served on the Board of Directors of both the American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI) and the Turnaround Management Association (TMA).
Dooley holds a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration and a Master’s degree in Business Administration with a focus on Finance from the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
Discussion by the Court
The Plaintiffs argued that Dooley’s opinions would not be helpful to a factfinder, and that some of his opinions are inadmissible legal conclusions or factual narratives.
The Plaintiffs also argued that Dooley’s testimony failed to account for contrary evidence. Concise conceded that Dooley’s opinion—that Concise was not a “joint employer”—is an inadmissible legal conclusion.
But Dooley’s opinions about whether Krasner’s conduct was “appropriate”-that is, whether his behavior was “perfectly consistent with the norms of corporate behavior”-is a key issue in this case, if not dispositive. While the Plaintiffs complained that Dooley testified as to what is “appropriate” or “proper” without articulating precise definitions or standards, Dooley’s opinions lie in his professional experience, which is a proper foundation.
The Plaintiffs’ next argument is that Dooley’s testimony, after “stripping away his ‘appropriateness’ opinions and legal conclusions left only his recitation of the facts and his inferences from them.”
Because the Court is not “stripping away” the “appropriateness” opinions, this argument appears to be moot. But nothing in this order precluded the Plaintiffs from objecting to the extent Dooley’s testimony at trial becomes a factual narrative, rather than an explanation of his expert opinion.
Finally, the Plaintiffs asserted that exclusion is proper because Dooley failed to account for contrary evidence. But such a failure is not a basis to exclude. Rather, these arguments go to weight, not admissibility.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Daniel Dooley.
Key Takeaway
An expert may, and often must, assume that the party for which he is testifying can prove the facts upon which he relies. The method for testing those assumptions lies in “vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof.”
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Degroot V. Nebraska Book Company, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 4:23cv3041 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Nebraska |
| Order Date: | April 23, 2026 |
Leave a Reply