Quinn Emanuel in Fight to Stay in Case Against Former Client Uber Faces Skeptical Judge
Lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan faced a flurry of skeptical question off the bat from the judge who will decide if they get to pursue an antitrust case against former client Uber Technologies.
April 26, 2019 at 06:07 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The federal judge who will decide whether lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan get to pursue an antitrust case against former client Uber Technologies Inc. greeted a lawyer from the firm with extreme skepticism and a flurry of difficult questions Friday.
U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero of the Northern District of California opened a hearing on Uber's motion to disqualify the Quinn Emanuel lawyers by raising concerns about the similarities between the lawsuit he's overseeing and an earlier suit where Quinn played the defense role for Uber. Spero is presiding over a suit where Quinn lawyers represent defunct ride-haling service Sidecar, claiming Uber effectively priced Sidecar out of the market. In the earlier case, Yellow Taxi v. Uber, Quinn helped Uber fend off claims from a Maryland taxicab company that claimed in 2014 that Uber was illegally sidestepping local taxi regulations.
Spero said the Maryland case, like the one he's overseeing, involved antitrust claims, claims that Uber caused drivers to charge predatory prices, and claims that the company's actions amounted to an attempt to monopolize the for-hire transportation market.
“All those things seem to me to show pretty clearly that that case is substantially related to this case,” Spero said. “It is, to me, an entirely irrelevant question that it's taxi drivers [in the prior case] and that it's an app here. We're talking about Uber's behavior.”
Spero also took issue with language included in declarations by Quinn lawyers, including firm co-founder and chair John Quinn, which said that they “had no particular recollection” of discussing antitrust issues that in-house lawyers at Uber claimed the firm had advised on.
“My presumption has got to be that if the lawyer doesn't remember it and the client does, that the client is right,” Spero said.
Uber's lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher filed their motion to disqualify the Quinn lawyer in February. Uber contends that Quinn Emanuel represented it in at least 20 cases from 2012 to 2016 that delved into competition issues similar to the ones in the Sidecar case.
Quinn Emanuel's Robert Feldman at Friday's hearing pointed out the Yellow Taxi case Quinn handled for Uber was filed in July 2014 and was dismissed shortly thereafter. “The cases are clear that Your Honor should consider the nature and extent of the lawyers' involvement,” Feldman said to Spero.
Spero shot back that Quinn obviously had “direct involvement” in the case as defense counsel.
Feldman didn't shrug off the firm's role, saying that it “was absolutely our case.” But he did contend that the pricing issues in the Maryland case were different. The Yellow Taxi case, he said, dealt with Uber's refusal to comply with taxi regulators, rather than Sidecar's allegations of undercutting prices to eliminate competition.
Feldman also took responsibility for the “no particular recollection” language in his colleague's declarations, saying that he asked them to include it because there was “no substantiation and no detail in the submissions by Uber.” He said that declarations by Uber personnel that Quinn lawyers had provided general antitrust advice were couched in generalities, offered no specifics and amounted to “simply hand-waving” compared to the details his colleagues offered.
Arguing for Uber, Gibson Dunn's Theodore Boutrous Jr. said that Uber's lawyers weren't required to disclose privileged, confidential material in order to make the case their former lawyers should be disqualified. He said that Quinn's prior work analyzing whether California's Public Utilities Commission had jurisdiction over Uber was particularly problematic since the CPUC's jurisdiction over the company could be raised as a defense in the Sidecar case.
“Here the substantial similarity is clear from the face of the complaint and the briefing that Quinn Emanuel drafted,” Boutrous said.
Spero took the motion under submission Friday and said that he would “get into the weeds” of the underlying exhibits and declarations before issuing a decision.
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 AllHow Kramer Levin's Patent Trial Team Approaches Teaching Tech to Juries
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Fends Off Antitrust Claims for Thomson Reuters Against AI-Backed Start-Up
'Corporate Lawyers Who Happen to Litigate': A Closer Look at a Recent Securities Litigation Hot Streak at Freshfields
Litigators of the Week: Robbins Geller Lands $490M Securities Settlement in Case Over Apple's Prospects in China
Trending Stories
- 1The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 2Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 3For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 4As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 5General Warrants and ESI
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