Welcome to Day 2 of the new Lit Daily newsletter. I'm your host Jenna Greene and you can reach me at [email protected].

If you missed yesterday's inaugural edition, I caught up with O'Melveny & Myer's Daniel Petrocelli.

I'm glad I talked to him when I did—I doubt he'll have much free time now that the Justice Department has sued to block the merger of AT&T and Time Warner. As lead trial counsel, Petrocelli told me his clients “are on the side of angels.”

It's bound to be a fascinating fight, and one I'll continue to follow. In the meantime, read coverage by my colleague Cogan Schneier here.

|

Sanctions R Us

He doesn't sound too concerned. His 23-lawyer boutique in Manhattan prides itself on bringing successful sanctions motions against opposing parties and counsel for frivolous conduct.

“It makes people think twice about messing around with you,” said Shore, whose past clients have included Marvel Comics legend Stan Lee. “An aggressive approach to litigation is an appropriate one.”

In New York, conduct is frivolous if it is “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument,” “is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another,” or “asserts material factual statements that are false.”

That's a pretty wide net. I can think of a lot of instances where it might apply (Hello delaying or prolonging resolution of litigation?).

Ganfer & Shore isn't necessarily raking in big-money penalties. In one recent order, for example, firm lawyers won a court order compelling opposing counsel Christopher Caesar and his client jointly or severally to pay them $37,856 in attorney fees.

I'm curious what other lawyers think. Is it worth blowback or lack of referrals down the line to bring sanctions motions whenever you see an opening?

Drop me a line at [email protected].

|

This Plaintiff Is Barking Up the Wrong Tree

We just got a puppy—our third dog—who at this moment is chewing the corner of the bookcase in my home office. (That's him in the photo). So I totally get where the plaintiff in a new lawsuit against a ritzy dog boarding facility (they have a “paw spa”) is coming from.

The Washington Post reported that a woman wants $150,000 in damages after her 4.5 pound teacup Yorkie was killed by a Labrador mix puppy at the cage-free kennel. According to the Post, the lab puppy, then 18 pounds, “had picked up the teacup Yorkie with its mouth, and moments later the miniature dog was no longer breathing.”

The suit was filed in D.C. Superior Court by Christopher Gowen of Gowen Rhoades Winograd & Silva on behalf of Falen LaPonzina.

The owner of the facility, Wagtime Too, said the lab puppy had been screened beforehand and never displayed aggressive behavior.

I don't doubt the owner feels like the loss of the dog ought to be worth $150,000—even though that's almost surely not going to happen. Because under the law, animals are property, and the going rate for a 12-year-old Yorkie is not $150,000.

Still, it's an area of law that's slowly changing, according to Schiff Hardin partner Bruce Wagman, who plausibly asserts he's the only Big Law partner in the country focusing exclusively on animal law.

I profiled him in August, when he observed more judges are taking into account what's best for the pet in custody fights, treating them not like a vase or a car in looking beyond mere indicia of ownership. Who walks the dog? Who has a yard? “It's happening without anyone realizing it's happening,” he said.

But that doesn't mean anyone is getting six figures for a Yorkie.

|

Calling All IP Lawyers

If patents are your jam, there's no bigger case on the horizon than Oil States. And you'll find no better guides to next week's SCOTUS argument than Law.com IP reporter Scott Graham and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner Mark Davies.Join their conference call Tuesday, November 28 for post-argument analysis of the Supreme Court cases that could reshape inter partes review proceedings or wipe them out altogether. Register here.

|

Shout-Out: Boies Schiller Knocks Down a Hurdle in Cayman Islands Cases

Eric Brenner of Boies Schiller Flexner on Monday scored a win at New York's highest appellate court, the New York Court of Appeals, in a decision that will affect companies and shareholders with interests in the Cayman Islands.

The case, Davis v. Scottish Re Group et al., involves the assertion of derivative claims under Cayman law.

Brenner represented Paul Davis, who used to be the largest minority shareholder in Scottish Re. Davis claimed that he and other minority shareholders were squeezed out of their stakes in Scottish Re after a merger that gave control of the company to Cerberus Capital Management and MassMutual.

New York's high court reversed the appellate court that found Davis lacked standing to sue in New York unless he first obtained permission from a Cayman court—a major hurdle.

Favorite quote: “New York courts are capable of applying Cayman substantive law to decide whether a plaintiff may bring shareholder derivative claims on behalf of a Cayman corporation,” the unanimous court held. “[I]n New York, we employ our own procedural rules in the [Civil Practice Law and Rules] to actions in our courts.”

So there.

Scottish Re was represented by Mayer Brown partner Jean-Marie Atamian.

|

Other Legal News

➤ Lawyer Challenges His Arrest Over Forced Witness Testimony in Guantánamo Case
THIS IS NOT OK. This lawyer was allegedly shackled, denied his wallet, phone and medication, flown to Virginia and held overnight in a cell. By our government. The supposed good guys.

➤ Lawyer Spat Threatens Lumber Liquidators Class Action Settlement
“They wanted to be included in our mediation and we didn't want them there,” said Steve Toll, managing partner of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. “None of us wanted them there.” Also, they are not invited to his birthday party or sleepover.

➤ Google Calls Ex-Female Employees' Pay-Equity Lawsuit 'Vague' and Sparse'
“The class spans Google's entire California workforce, top to bottom,” wrote lawyers from Paul Hastings. Perhaps because they've all faced discrimination?

➤ Defendants Accelerate Efforts to Boot Infringement Suits Out of Delaware
Only two active judges and too many cases. Bummer, I know—no more wild and crazy times in Wilmington.

➤ Judge Says Reed Smith Can't Sue for $7M Slice of SAC Capital Fees
Interesting side note – Reed Smith was originally represented by Marc Kasowitz, but replaced him in July. Hmmm … the same month he sent that profanity-filled and generally mortifying email to a stranger who urged him to resign.

➤ Mueller's Team Raises Questions About Possible Defense Conflicts
At issue: Walter Mack, a partner in New York's Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack.