Pierce Bainbridge Extortion Suit Against Ex-Partner Tentatively Tossed, but Fight Continues
A California judge concluded ex-partner Don Lewis didn't have enough ties to the state for the case to proceed, keeping the battle in New York.
December 04, 2019 at 01:22 PM
4 minute read
A California judge tentatively dismissed one of three pending cases between Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht and its former partner Donald Lewis this week, concluding that Lewis' contacts with California weren't strong enough to establish personal jurisdiction.
While Lewis emailed a draft complaint to more than a dozen Pierce Bainbridge partners, some of whom were in California, Judge Patricia Nieto of the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that it wasn't enough of an anchor for personal jurisdiction under state law. The firm had argued that Lewis' contacts met the standard of the so-called "effects test," but the judge rejected that.
"Plaintiff establishes that three recipients of the email were California residents," the provisional ruling said. "However, the fact that plaintiff is a California corporation and three of the 16 recipients were residents of California does not sufficient to satisfy the 'express aiming' element of the effects test.
"This evidence only focuses on defendant's connection with plaintiff and plaintiff's agents who are California residents, rather than any defamatory/extortionate effect that occurred within California," the ruling continued. "This does not establish that the 'brunt' of the effect occurred in California, as there is no evidence [of] any effect in California. Thus, the evidence does not show a connection with defendant and California, but defendant and plaintiff."
The decision—which also rejected Lewis' request for sanctions on Pierce Bainbridge—stands to put a quiet end to an uproarious case that included descriptions of alleged sexual misconduct. Pierce Bainbridge said Lewis was fired after violating the terms of his administrative leave while a staffer's claims against him were investigated, but Lewis has said that the claims are false and he was fired for raising concerns about global managing partner John Pierce's use of funds lent to the firm by Pravati Capital.
Nieto's tentative decision also shifts the focus of the parties' dispute to New York, where Lewis has filed two lawsuits against Pierce Bainbridge, several of its partners and its outside counsel at Littler Mendelson and Putney, Twombly, Hall & Hirson. Motions to dismiss are pending in both cases.
In an email, Pierce defended the firm's firing of Lewis and described the dismissal as "purely procedural."
"We are looking forward to putting Don Lewis—and all his problematic behaviors—behind us in the ongoing NY cases, so that we may move on and focus on what's most important to us: continuing our job building the absolute best law firm this world has ever seen," he wrote.
Lewis said in an email that the dismissal is "the first step" in vindicating himself.
"While the dismissal was based on jurisdiction, the complaint consisted of a mountain of lies contradicted by contemporaneous emails, texts, and slacks, among other items, and sworn affidavits by PB partners, which also contain lies," he wrote. "As I have said from day one, Pierce Bainbridge sought to blunt my truthful allegations of severe dysfunction and financial malfeasance at the firm. They tried to shoot the messenger, but they clearly missed."
In an email after this story was initially published, Tom Warren, a partner at Pierce Bainbridge, said the tentative ruling came down ahead of oral argument, and said based on the argument, Nieto "could very well decide she does have jurisdiction."
Pierce Bainbridge is represented by its own attorneys, including Pierce, Denver Edwards and Janine Cohen, according to a brief filed by the firm. Lewis was represented by Terrence Jones, who runs his own firm.
This story has been updated to clarify that the judge's dismissal ruling is tentative and could still be modified.
|Read More
Ex-Partner's Suit Against Pierce Bainbridge a Slog, Judge Says
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
6 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250