Year: 2017

Dunn, who was represented by Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos, had sought over $4 million in damages.

In his decision, JAMS Arbitrator Edward A. Infante found that Dunn deserved neither.

During a five-day arbitration in February, Hueston Hennigan, which represented the Bar, argued that far from retaliation against him, the agency fired Dunn based on misconduct and false representations he made to the Bar board. The Bar decided to terminate him after it had hired an independent law firm to conduct an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing made against Dunn by former Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim.

Judge Infante ruled: “Claimant’s actions caused the Board to question Claimant’s motivations and damaged Claimant’s relationships with both internal staff and key stakeholders. The State Bar introduced evidence indicating that the Trustees considered each of Claimant’s breaches to be significant and substantial.”

Moreover, although Dunn referred to himself as a “whistleblower,” the arbitrator found that he never established a legal basis for doing so:

“Claimant failed to demonstrate that he engaged in protected “Whistleblower” activity….Claimant also failed to demonstrate that his comments…had any causal connection to the Board’s decision to terminate his employment. Furthermore, the State Bar’s evidence demonstrates that the Board had a legitimate, non-retaliatory explanation for its decision to terminate Claimant’s employment.”

In addition to the Dunn matter, Hueston Hennigan represents the Bar in a series of other lawsuits brought by former Bar employees.

Representing the Bar were: John Hueston, Moez Kaba, Marshall Camp, Joseph Reiter, Varun Behl, Mike Behrens, Stan Chen, and Lana Birbrair.

Media Coverage

The Daily Journal

The Recorder

Law360

“We appreciate the court’s thoughtful analysis of these issues and are gratified that the judge accepted our arguments,” said Hueston Hennigan partner, Moez Kaba. The Bar has consistently maintained that it acted properly when it eliminated Layton’s position.

Judge Doyle dismissed, without leave to amend, Layton’s claim alleging the defendants had violated his right to privacy and freedom of association. The judge also granted the Bar’s request to dismiss without leave to amend his breach of good faith and fair dealing claim.

Hueston Hennigan represents the State Bar in several high-profile lawsuits brought against the agency by former employees, including the Bar’s former Executive Director. The team handling these cases includes John Hueston, Moez Kaba, Joe Reiter, Varun Behl, Stan Chen, and Lana Birbrair.

Redstone’s October suit against his former companions is just one piece of the protracted legal saga surrounding the Redstone estate, in which Herzer filed suit alleging Sumner Redstone is mentally incompetent and being controlled by his daughter to keep the long-time lover and caretaker from claiming her fair share of the mogul’s assets.

A California judge in May 2016 put an end to Herzer’s petition, saying Sumner Redstone’s testimony in a 15-minute video-recorded deposition “ultimately defeated her case.”

Redstone filed the elder abuse suit in October against Herzer and Holland, alleging they executed a years-long plot to drain him of everything he had, manipulating and sometimes drugging him to get him to sign over control of his funds.

IMDb, which stands for Internet Movie Database, filed suit in November, arguing that it was singled out by Assembly Bill 1687, which violates the company’s free speech rights. The law, which went into effect Jan. 1, calls for commercial entertainment employment providers that offer a paid service for actors to post their profiles for networking and casting purposes to remove, upon the subscriber’s request, the actor’s date of birth within a window of five days. But its subscribers have already been able to do that in the separate paid section of the site, and anything in the public section is factual information that can be found anywhere, IMDb said in its complaint.

IMDb is represented by John Hueston, Moez Kaba and Adam Olin.

Led by Pro Bono Coordinator Courtney Black, the firm sprang into action, preparing a letter to authorities in Saudi Arabia explaining that as a Green Card holder, Ali was entitled to return to the United States, her home for the past 26 years. Saudi authorities reversed themselves and allowed Ali to return home. We are thrilled for Ali and her family, and we are proud of all the attorneys, at our firm and across the country, who have helped ensure that the law is followed for individuals affected by the Executive Order.

“We appreciate the arbitrator’s thoughtful, reasoned opinion,” said Moez Kaba, who represented Mr. Holden. “Mr. Holden always maintained that he acted properly and with integrity, and we are happy that he can now move on from this matter.”

Read: “Ex Calif. Bar President Sheds fired Exec’s Contract Claim” in Law360.

Shareholder Judy Durgin’s suit, brought in May 2007, relates to allegedly misleading statements the pharmaceutical giant made about off-label uses for two of its drugs, Aranesp and Epogen. In 2012, the company pled guilty in federal court to misbranding Aranesp and agreed to a combined $762 million civil and criminal payout to resolve the allegations about its sales and marketing practices. It also paid tens of millions of dollars to resolve state claims and an investor class action.

In his Tuesday ruling, U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez said Durgin also failed to adequately allege, with the legally required specificity, that she didn’t make a prelitigation demand on the board because to do so would have been “futile.” He also noted that she asked the court to introduce into evidence 24 new exhibits in support of her complaint.

“Here, plaintiff seeks to circumvent the fact that she has not pled particularized facts as required … by attempting to amend her complaint through judicial notice of facts purportedly demonstrating demand futility,” the judge wrote in his 18-page ruling. “This is improper.”

The request, and the reliance on the documents, “constitutes a tacit admission” that the complaint lacked the needed pleadings to excuse the lack of demand on Amgen’s board, he said. While Durgin had argued that making such a demand on the board would have been a waste of time, the complaint on its own didn’t create a “reasonable doubt that Amgen’s board of directors was incapable of exercising independent and disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand,” the judge said.

Amgen attorney Douglas Dixon of Hueston Hennigan LLP told Law360 on Tuesday that he was very happy with the ruling.

“There’s high standard for alleging demand futility and boilerplate conclusory allegations won’t get you there, and that’s all that plaintiff offered,” Dixon said during a telephone interview. “We think the judge absolutely got the right result and we’re very pleased that it’s also with prejudice so we can put this litigation behind us.”

Counsel for Durgin was not immediately reachable for comment on Tuesday.

In her filing in opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by Amgen and joined by the individual board defendants, Durgin said federal courts regularly find such a demand isn’t necessary in circumstances like hers. During the nine years the case was stayed, she said, the biotechnology company copped to criminal charges and shelled out about $928 million in settlements and forfeitures over the same allegations.

“There can be no doubt that the board’s actions (and conscious inaction) caused Amgen to violate the law and, in turn, caused significant harm and damages to the company,” Durgin said. “The acting U.S. attorney of the Eastern District of New York confirmed that ‘instead of working to extend and enhance human lives, Amgen illegally pursued corporate profits while jeopardizing the safety of vulnerable consumers suffering from a disease. Americans expect – and the law requires – much more.'”

During oral arguments on Monday, Durgin’s attorney, James Jaconette of Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, argued that the documents supported the complaint, but said if the court was struggling with the complaint’s securities fraud claim, it could be let go.

“The breach of fiduciary duty claims stand on their own,” the attorney said. “Candidly, I don’t think we need to bring the 10b claims right now. If we’re talking about how to resolve this case, which has been on the docket for nine years, expeditiously, I think that it’s appropriate to discuss exactly how we can do this.”

The company and the shareholders were “walloped” by company officials’ actions, the attorney said.

“We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars paid in fines and penalties, and with the investigations concluded and the class case settled with substantial money allocated out of Amgen’s pockets and the pockets of Amgen’s shareholders as a result,” he said.

In August 2015, Amgen agreed to pay $71 million to 48 state attorneys general over the claims. Last year, the company settled an investor class action for $95 million.

Durgin’s derivative complaint against Amgen’s board stated causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and misleading investors to inflate the company’s stock price. It was stayed months after it was filed to wait for the outcome of the securities litigation and reopened on Oct. 11, 2016.

Durgin is represented by James I. Jaconette and Benny C. Goodman III of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Paul Warner of The Warner Law Firm, and David M. Goldstein of the Law Offices of David M. Goldstein.

The officers and directors are represented by Steven O. Kramer and Jonathan David Moss of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Amgen is represented by John C. Hueston, Douglas James Dixon, and Kasey L. Mitchell of Hueston Hennigan LLP. The case is Judy Durgin v. Kevin W. Sharer et al., case number 2:07-cv-03001, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

By Bonnie Eslinger