Gibson Dunn Steps In for Uber, Asks Court to Boot Quinn From Repping Sidecar
"Quinn Emanuel has appeared as counsel of record for Uber in approximately 20 lawsuits, in federal and state courts across the country, and has provided counseling to Uber on a broad array of legal matters—including unfair competition (specifically as it relates to pricing) and antitrust," wrote Gibson Dunn lawyers.
January 08, 2019 at 02:59 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM
Uber has lawyered up in a big way to fend off an antitrust challenge from defunct ride-hailing app Sidecar. The company has brought on a team led by Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher to defend the suit filed last month by Sidecar successor SC Innovations Inc., or SCI.
According to court papers filed Monday, the Gibson Dunn lawyers intend for their first order of business to be an attempt to disqualify SCI's lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.
“Quinn Emanuel has appeared as counsel of record for Uber in approximately 20 lawsuits, in federal and state courts across the country, and has provided counseling to Uber on a broad array of legal matters—including unfair competition (specifically as it relates to pricing) and antitrust,” wrote the Gibson Dunn lawyers. Uber claims that Quinn's prior work for the company allowed the firm to obtain confidential information material to its current work for SCI, particularly Quinn's work in a case filed by cab companies against Uber in Maryland in 2014.
Quinn Emanuel's Ethan Glass and Claude Stern didn't immediately respond to emails seeking comment Tuesday. But according to email correspondence attached to Uber's court filings, Quinn's lawyers don't see a conflict in their prior work for Uber and their current assignment for SCI.
“That work was not substantially related to this case,” wrote Glass in a Dec. 27 email.
SCI's lawsuit, which the Quinn lawyers filed Dec. 11, claims that Uber is currently a “monopolist” in the ride-hailing market. The Quinn lawyers claim that Uber stole Sidecar's business model and “intentionally sustained near-term losses that were designed to drive Sidecar out of the market while Uber acquired a dominant market position.”
Monday's filings from Gibson Dunn request that the deadline for Uber to respond to SCI's complaint be pushed back so the company can pursue its motion to disqualify SCI's lawyers at Quinn Emanuel before filing a motion to dismiss.
“If the parties simultaneously brief a motion to disqualify and Uber's motion to dismiss the complaint, and the motion to disqualify is granted, the complaint and any substantive briefing by Quinn Emanuel would likely be struck,” the Gibson Dunn lawyers wrote. “Any new counsel that SCI retains would have to file a new complaint and the parties would need to submit a new round of briefing and pleadings.”
The Gibson Dunn lawyers claim that Quinn lawyers indicated that they would likely stipulate to an extension of the briefing schedule, but ultimately declined to agree to one. The Gibson Dunn lawyers wrote that it would be “ironic” for SCI to allege that Uber was attempting to delay the case through procedural posturing. “SCI waited until three years after Sidecar 'went out of business' to file this action,” they wrote.
Gibson Dunn's Boutrous didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
Uber previously raised the possibility of moving to disqualify Quinn Emanuel when it was up against the firm in its prior blockbuster trade secret showdown with autonomous vehicle rival Waymo. Uber questioned the timing of a September 2016 email dropping the company as a client sent from Quinn's Stephen Swedlow to top Uber in-house lawyers. The email noted that the fees paid to firms in Uber's preferred counsel program were “not financially viable” for the firm. Uber ultimately opted not to pursue Quinn's disqualification in the Waymo case.
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
© 2025 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
An ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
