Roger Rosendahl seems to think his age discrimination lawsuit already died, but it looks to have outlived his expectations. It might not last much longer, however.
The former Stoel Rives project finance partner sued his former firm last December in Washington, D.C., superior court, and the case was removed last week to federal court. A Morgan, Lewis & Bockius team defending Stoel Rives filed a motion to dismiss Rosendahl’s suit on Wednesday.
But Rosendahl, now listed as a partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough in New York, says there’s no case left to dismiss.
Law360 published a report that said Rosendahl would drop his $30 million claim, and then Rosendahl told ALM in an email this week that “the case has been dismissed.” When reached by telephone on Wednesday afternoon, Rosendahl, who is representing himself in the case, said he was in a meeting and hung up.
The D.C. federal court docket, at any rate, showed no sign of dismissal, voluntary or otherwise. And his adversaries are still treating the case as alive, if not well.
“While the Plaintiff publicly told a journalist that he was dismissing the case voluntarily, to our knowledge, nothing to that effect was filed,” said Jasmine C. Trillos-Decarie, Stoel Rives chief client service officer, in an email. “Therefore, Stoel Rives was obligated to respond within the deadlines mandated by the rules of procedure.”
Rosendahl joined Stoel Rives from DLA Piper at age 73 in 2014, according to his lawsuit. While the firm did not ask for his age on hiring him and he did not share it, he claims his age became known and that he was subjected to mockery in the workplace.
The firm’s motion to dismiss attacks Rosendahl’s complaint on multiple grounds.
“Rosendahl’s scattershot claims are baseless and should be dismissed,” the Morgan Lewis attorneys wrote in Wednesday’s filing. “To start, Rosendahl does not (and cannot) establish that most of the individual partners he attempts to sue—Mark Morford, Bradley Tellam, Andrew Moratzka, and David Quinby—are subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. Those individuals reside and work in Oregon or Minnesota, and they have no ties to the District of Columbia that would enable Rosendahl to invoke general or specific personal jurisdiction over them in this forum.”
Stoel Rives also asserts that Rosendahl did not meet the firm’s expectations, leading the firm to demote him in 2015 and to “part ways” in 2016. Aside from rejecting the suit on jurisdictional grounds, the firm’s motion to dismiss argues that his complaint fails to adequately state a claim for discrimination, fraud and other allegations, and that his age discrimination claims are time-barred.