|
Experience
Weeks, et al. v. Google LLC
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Secured a favorable settlement for Google in a putative consumer class action brought by a group of Pixel 1 and Pixel XL smartphone buyers shortly after Google filed its opposition to plaintiffs’ class certification motion. The court granted final approval of the settlement.
In re Nest Labs Litigation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented Nest Labs, Inc., a Google subsidiary, in consolidated class actions involving the cutting edge Nest Learning Thermostat. Plaintiffs alleged that the Nest Learning Thermostat did not provide energy savings and other benefits promised. The Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in its entirety.
Farwell v. Google LLC
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented Google in a putative class action complaint brought on behalf of G-Suite for Education users in Illinois. The complaint alleged that Google’s G Suite for Education, a group of computer applications used by many school districts, violates Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case.
Bonoan v. Adobe
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented Adobe in a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The plaintiff was seeking statutory damages in the tens of millions of dollars. The parties have reached a class settlement which has been preliminarily approved by the Court.
In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Representing Google in a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging that Google violated various federal and state privacy laws, including the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), the California Constitution, and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), when the Google Assistant—a virtual personal assistant—allegedly recorded plaintiffs’ conversations without consent. In granting the motion to dismiss, the Court found nearly all twelve claims insufficiently pled, allowing only a subpart each of the SCA and UCL claims to proceed.
Vance v. Google
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Defending Google in a putative class action alleging violations of Illinois’ Biometric Privacy Information Act (BIPA). The proposed class is comprised of individuals whose photographs were allegedly compiled, without plaintiffs’ consent, into a dataset by IBM that could be used to train facial recognition software. Plaintiffs further allege that Google obtained a copy of the dataset and used plaintiffs’ biometric information without consent to improve their facial recognition technology.
Reactx LLC v. Google Inc.
Representing Google in trade secrets/breach of contract matter for Google in which the plaintiff is seeking over $100 million in damages by alleging Google stole its “technology” and used it to create AdSense Auto Ads. The Court sustained Google’s Demurrer and dismissed the last three claims, finding they were preempted by California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Defense of Google, Inc. in Multiple Putative Class Actions re: BIPA and Google Photos
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Circuit Court of Illinois, Will County
Lead litigation counsel for Google in multiple putative class actions alleging that aspects of Google Photos violate the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). In the first case, Rivera v. Google, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, obtained summary judgment victory on the ground that the plaintiffs had not suffered an injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. Rivera is ongoing, following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s decision ruling regarding Article III standing for BIPA claims in Bryant v. Compass.
Riccobono v. Blue Apron, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Defended Blue Apron, Inc., in a purported nationwide class action asserting violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and California’s Automatic Purchase Renewal Statute; achieved confidential settlement and stipulated dismissal after removal and transfer of case.
Sikhs for Justice “SFJ”, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Obtained dismissal of civil rights case against Facebook under the Communications Decency Act, 42 U.S.C. § 230 (“CDA”), where the plaintiff alleged that Facebook improperly restricted access to its Facebook page in India.
Garcia v. Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Defended Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC in a case brought by an actress who appeared in the controversial “Innocence of Muslims” film. Garcia sued Google and YouTube for copyright infringement after allegedly receiving death threats based on her role in the film, and sought removal of the film from the YouTube website. The District Court denied Garcia’s motion for preliminary injunction finding, among other things, that she had failed to show a likelihood of success on her copyright claim. After a divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed the decision in 2014 and ordered the film removed, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the panel’s opinion in a precedent-setting decision, finding that the takedown order was “unwarranted and incorrect as a matter of law.” Garcia v. Google Inc., 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc).
Concept Chaser Co. v. Pentel of America, Ltd.
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
Obtained reversal of a $14.6 million jury verdict against Pentel of America, Ltd. While represented by other counsel, Pentel lost a jury trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court in which the plaintiff, an advertising agency, alleged breach of contract and fraud and was awarded over $32 million. After being retained in the case, we eliminated $18 million in fraud damages against Pentel of America and its parent corporation though post-trial motions, and in the Court of Appeal, won reversal of the remainder of the judgment, reversal of a $1.5 million attorney fee award, and a new trial. No. B241929 (Cal. Ct. App. May 27, 2014).
Cappello Capital Corp. v. AmericanWest Bank, Sandler O’Neill & Partners, L.P., et al.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
Obtained a summary judgment for Sandler O’Neill against Cappello from the bankruptcy court resulting in dismissal of all claims against Sandler O’Neill by the district court. The claims consisted of alleged interference with contract and interference with prospective economic relations. Sandler O’Neill, a New York based investment bank that specializes in finding capital for financial institutions, found and placed the necessary capital that allowed AmericanWest Bank to avoid seizure and takeover by the FDIC. Cappello sued both the bank and Sandler O’Neill seeking credit for the deal and remuneration for the deal. The court found Sandler O’Neill, not Cappello, solely sourced the deal and that Cappello failed to establish any legal claim against Sandler.
Seattle Bank Reverse Mortgage Cases
Obtained dismissals and highly favorable nuisance settlements in a serious of cases brought by consumers who had obtained reverse mortgages from the bank’s mortgage unit, Seattle Mortgage, in which plaintiffs alleged unfair competition, false advertising and related consumer claims.
Classic Party Rentals Trade Secret Case
Superior Court of California, Santa Barbara County
Negotiated settlement of trade secret case against former employee and competitor in case alleging that former employee stole confidential trade secret information from Classic, and attempted to impart the information to her new employer and use the information in competition with Classic.
