Uber Gets Former Firm Quinn Emanuel Booted From Handling Former Rival's Antitrust Case
A federal magistrate judge in San Francisco found that Quinn Emanuel's prior defense of Uber in a case where a Maryland taxi company was bringing predatory pricing claims had "substantial relationship" to the case the firm was pursuing on behalf of defunct Uber rival Sidecar.
May 02, 2019 at 06:57 PM
2 minute read
A federal judge in San Francisco on Thursday disqualified lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan from representing defunct ride-hailing service Sidecar in an antitrust lawsuit against the law firm's former client Uber Technologies Inc.
U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero found that the firm's work defending Uber from predatory pricing claims brought in a 2014 lawsuit from a Maryland taxi company had a “substantial relationship” to the case the firm's lawyers were pursuing on behalf of Sidecar.
Spero wrote that “it is reasonable for Uber to expect that Quinn Emanuel would not now serve as counsel to a plaintiff bringing antitrust claims based on Uber's alleged conduct during the same time that Quinn Emanuel served as Uber's sole outside litigation counsel and defended Uber against unfair competition and antitrust claims—including at least some claims turning on factual questions underlying the case at hand.”
Lawyers at Quinn Emanuel had tried to distinguish the Maryland case from their work for Sidecar by pointing out that the earlier case dealt with Uber's noncompliance with regulated prices for cab fares where the Sidecar case dealt with allegations that Uber was charging below-cost prices aimed at eliminating competition in the market for ride-hailing software. Spero, however, noted in Thursday's opinion that the “the software-only market definition on which Sidecar relies to distinguish [the Maryland case] was a legal strategy that Quinn Emanuel pioneered for Uber in the years in which it served as Uber's litigation counsel.”
Uber's lead outside counsel, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, referred a request for comment to the company. Uber representatives didn't immediately respond to messages.
Robert Feldman of Quinn Emanuel declined to comment.
Read the opinion:
Read more:
This content has been archived.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
Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute read
OpenAI, NYTimes Counsel Quarrel Over Erased OpenAI Training Data
Meta Seeks Declaratory Judgment in VR Eyewear Tech Patent Infringement Case
Porsche's Venture Capital Arm Adds General Counsel From Clifford Chance
Trending Stories
- 1'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
- 2Call for Nominations: TLI's Pennsylvania Legal Awards 2025
- 3Florida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
- 4Supreme Court Drops Facebook's Appeal in Securities Case as 'Improvidently Granted'
- 5Newsmakers: Scott Bailey Joins Jones Day’s Corporate Practice in Dallas
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
