Katten Munchin Roseman office. Courtesy photoKatten Settles With Recruiter Over Dallas Placement Fee Days Before Trial
California recruiting company Kossoris Search has settled a suit against Katten Muchin Rosenman related to the firm's launch of its Dallas office in 2018.
January 23, 2020 at 04:10 PM
2 minute read
A California recruiting company and Katten Muchin Rosenman have settled a lawsuit related to the firm's opening of its Dallas office in 2018.
The suit filed by Kossoris Search of Los Angeles had been set for trial Jan. 27 in the California Superior Court in Los Angeles, but the parties filed a joint notice of settlement in Judge H. Jay Ford III's court on Jan. 17.
In that notice, Katten and Kossoris Search said they are in the process of documenting the settlement and will file a dismissal as soon as practicable.
A representative for Katten confirmed the settlement, but she said terms are confidential and the firm would have no comment on it.
Ryan Larsen, a Katten partner in Los Angeles who is on the defense team and signed the notice of settlement, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Marc Mukasey, a partner at Mukasey Frenchman & Sklaroff of New York who represents Kossoris Search, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Amy Kossoris, owner of Kossoris Search, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Kossoris Search sought to collect a placement fee—the amount was unspecified—after a group of seven Dallas lawyers, led by corporate partner Mark Solomon, joined Katten in February 2018. The group came from Andrews Kurth Kenyon, which soon afterward merged with Hunton & Williams.
Amy Kossoris alleged that she introduced the group to Katten in 2015, and the firm agreed to pay her an "unconditional placement fee" if it hired the Dallas partners.
Last August, Ford denied Katten's motion for summary judgment, finding "triable issues of fact" exist in Kossoris Search's breach of contract and quantum meruit causes of action. The judge granted summary adjudication to Katten on a promissory estoppel cause of action.
|Read More
Katten Can't Escape Recruiter's Case Over Dallas Group's Placement Fee
This content has been archived.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
Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Law Firms Shrink From 'Performative' Statements
6 minute read
Norton Rose Lawyers Accused of Accessing Confidential Material in Internal IT Probe
3 minute read
Partner Compensation, Billing Rates Are Trending Higher in Dallas Than Houston
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'If You Have the Offering, India Is the Shining Star': International Firms on Bolstering Their India Desks
- 2Meet Christopher Benjamin: New Miami-Dade Judge
- 3Are Federal and State Superfund Laws the Best Way to Address Microplastics?
- 4Attorney Can't Invest in Firm With Non-Lawyer Owner?
- 5Former Perkins Coie Partner Moves to Stradley Ronon in Chicago
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
