Uber Takes Aim at Former Chamber Lawyer in Worker Misclassification Suit
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen said the plaintiff's lawyer had a "common interest" with Uber when he previously collaborated with the company's lawyers on the chamber's challenge to a Seattle collective bargaining ordinance for ride-hailing drivers.
November 21, 2018 at 12:22 AM
3 minute read
A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit against Uber Technologies on Tuesday considered the ride-sharing company's motion to disqualify one of the plaintiff's lawyers on the case due to his previous position litigating alongside Uber on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said at a hearing on Uber's motion that Warren Postman—who is now part of the Keller Lenkner team representing Diva Limousine in its suit against Uber—had a “common interest” with Uber when he previously collaborated with the company's lawyers on the chamber's challenge to a Seattle collective bargaining ordinance for ride-hailing drivers.
Although there was no formal joint defense agreement between the parties, Chen said the fact that Uber was a co-plaintiff with the chamber in the lawsuit challenging the Seattle law could create some sort of common interest.
“If there is a credible assertion that the parties acted under, then understanding that there is some kind of joint defense or common interest privilege, some documents were shared … then I have to go with the broad brush of substantial relationship,” said Chen, chewing over whether Postman and his firm should be disqualified.
Attorneys for Uber at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius filed a motion to disqualify Keller Lenkner last month, arguing that Postman's conflict must be imputed to the entire firm.
Uber's lawyer, Brian Rocca, told the court on Wednesday that Postman's co-counsel at the chamber, Steven Lehotsky, had confirmed that he and Postman received confidential information from Uber's counsel about the ride-sharing company's core legal strategies and business model as a result of a partnership between the chamber and Uber in the Seattle litigation.
“The legal updates are one thing, but the core work product that goes to the heart of Uber's business model is another thing,” Rocca said.
Lawyers at Robins Kaplan and Keller Lenkner sued Uber in September, claiming that the company saves millions in required benefits and payroll costs via its classification of drivers as contractors rather than employees. They allege the misclassification allows Uber to target their client, Studio City-based livery service Diva Limousine Ltd., with “below-cost and anticompetitive pricing” and saves Uber nearly $500 million in California annually.
Keller Lenkner name partner Travis Lenkner said Wednesday that plaintiffs do not dispute that Uber and the chamber were co-plaintiffs in the Seattle litigation and could have a common interest. However, because Uber's materials were shared widely with the chamber, they should not be considered confidential, he argued.
“There is nothing confidential there,” Lenkner said. “This issue has been litigated in courts and other proceedings … anything you have been saying … is out there.”
Lenkner further suggested that Uber waived its privilege by delaying its disqualification motion weeks after Diva filed its complaint. Uber's motion was a “strategic move” to disqualify Keller Lenkner from the litigation, he said.
“These are all tactical conduct by Uber,” said Lenkner. “They should have raised the question with us.”
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 AllAs AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
Insurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
Trending Stories
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