Expletive-Laden 'Negotiating Tactic' Could End in Sanctions for SoCal Lawyer
Culver City attorney Christopher Hook referred to opposing counsel at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton as "mother fucking cock suckers," among other slurs and epithets, in what he has labeled a "confidential negotiating tactic" to get insurer Allstate to settle with his clients.
December 05, 2019 at 06:15 PM
4 minute read
A Southern California attorney is facing possible sanctions after sending opposing counsel more than 100 emails—many laced with profanity and discriminatory epithets—demanding a nine-figure settlement on behalf of his clients suing Allstate Insurance Co. in a home insurance coverage dispute.
U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II of the Central District of California this week asked Culver City plaintiffs attorney Christopher Hook to show why he shouldn't be sanctioned and the case tossed in light of his actions.
Allstate's attorneys at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton last week asked for terminating sanctions and a restraining order barring Hook from getting within 100 feet of the offices or homes of Allstate and its lawyers. They attached examples of Hook's emails to a declaration from partner Peter Klee made in support of their motion in filings that were first reported by Above the Law.
"Haha. Fuck you crooks. Eat a bowl of dicks," Hook wrote in response to Klee's partner Marc Feldman's claim that the dispute was over just $200,000.
"I'm going to let the long dick of the law fuck Allstate for all of us," Hook wrote the next morning, according to a timestamp on a follow-up email.
The next morning, Hook wrote, "Hey Klee you Cumstain the demand is now 302 million. Pay up fuckface."
In follow-on communication, Hook referred to his opposing counsel as "gay boys" and other epithets before sending Klee emails stating "I know where you live," identifying his home address and his wife by name. Hook also wrote he would "water board each one of [Allstate's] trolls that show up for depo without any mercy whatsoever."
"Although I have never met or spoken to Mr. Hook, based on his repeated threats, I was forced—for the first time in my 35-plus years of practice—to warn my family to take appropriate safety precautions because they may be in danger," Klee wrote in his declaration. "My firm has also notified security in our San Diego and Los Angeles offices not to grant Mr. Hook entry," he continued.
Hook, contacted by email Thursday, declined to comment beyond the opposition papers, declaration, and supporting exhibits he filed with the court. There Hook claimed his opponents filed their sanctions motion on the eve of the Thanksgiving holiday to delay scheduled depositions of Allstate witnesses. Hook wrote that he only resorted to "harsh language" as "a confidential negotiating tactic" without the knowledge of his clients after "stonewalling" and silence from the Sheppard Mullin lawyers.
"The undersigned recognizes that perhaps some of the language 'crossed the line' of civility and was offensive and inappropriate," Hook wrote. "With that said, the language used was 'for effect,' similar to bluster or 'puffery' and was not intended to actually be considered personal insults."
Hook wrote he has a right to free speech under the U.S. Constitution and that under California law, communication made in conjunction with litigation enjoys an "absolute privilege."
"Even if the allegations in defendant's application were supported by evidence (they are not), such inflammatory speech would be absolutely privileged," Hook wrote. "To hold otherwise would result in a litigation environment spawning an endless spin-off of 'sub' lawsuits when the pride of counsel was injured."
Sheppard Mullin's Klee and Feldman didn't immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
Wright has set a hearing on the sanctions motion for Dec. 16 and ordered the plaintiffs and a representative from Allstate to attend.
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'A Wake Up Call to the Life Insurance Industry:' California Sues Insurers
3 minute readFederal Judge Sides With Lyft Driver in Contractual Dispute Over $1M Uninsured Motorist Coverage
5 minute readFormer CVS Exec Faces Trade Secrets Suit for Allegedly Helping Chickasaw Nation Case
3 minute readFacing a Shrinking Talent Pool, Insurance Defense Firms Are Fighting to Add Attorneys
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
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