Author: Kristy Werness

Herzer kicked off the legal battle in November 2015 when she filed a lawsuit challenging Redstone’s mental capacity and alleging that Redstone had been unduly influenced by his daughter, Shari Redstone, to remove Herzer from Redstone’s estate plan. In May 2016, after just one day of trial, Hueston Hennigan obtained dismissal of Herzer’s challenge. Herzer then filed additional lawsuits against the Redstone family, all of which are now being resolved.

The settlement also resolves Redstone’s elder abuse action against Herzer alleging that she and another former companion, Sydney Holland, isolated him from his family and manipulated and sometimes drugged him to compel him to sign over control of his funds and estate. The Redstones settled litigation involving Holland separately last year.

Herzer’s lawsuits also spawned related litigation in Massachusetts and Delaware over control of Viacom, in which Redstone’s mental capacity was challenged. After less than three month of litigation, Redstone emerged victorious.

The story is covered in numerous publications including the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Variety, The New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter, and New York Post.

The Hueston Hennigan team included Rob Klieger, Andrew Walsh and Tanner Camp.

Judge White dismissed the claims against the group of restaurant defendants—which included the likes of Danny Meyer, David Chang, and Gabriel Stulman—holding that the plaintiff’s allegations did not plausibly allege a “price-fixing conspiracy.”

“Today’s significant victory was a clear win for restaurateurs and their ability to innovate,” said lead counsel, who represented Gabriel Stulman and his restaurant group Happy Cooking Hospitality.  “We strongly believed this case lacked legal merit, and are pleased the federal court accepted our arguments and dismissed Happy Cooking and Mr. Stulman.”

The case arose out of the “Hospitality Included” movement.  Beginning in 2014, restaurants across the country—including the New York and Bay Area defendants—began eliminating the tip line at their restaurants and adjusting menu prices accordingly.  This change was made to help increase pay for back-of-house staff and to eliminate the racial and gender inequality created by tipping.

Plaintiff Timothy Brown believed that the “Hospitality Included” movement was somehow nefarious. In his complaint filed in October 2017, Brown alleged that the no-tipping policies were part of “a sophisticated and unlawful conspiracy,” which “transfers millions of dollars from customers and serves to restaurant owners in violation of federal and state antitrust laws.”

Judge White disagreed, and accepted the defendants arguments.  In his order dismissing the case, he noted that the no-tipping group was akin to a trade organization—where “information is exchanged and strategies are advocated”—which does not violate antitrust laws.  He also highlighted the implausibility of the alleged conspiracy, since the New York and California defendants operated “in totally different markets” and had in some instances eliminated tipping years apart from each other.

The Hueston Hennigan team included Michael H. Todisco.

Recognized as a national “Top 20 Trial Law Firm” by Benchmark Litigation, Hueston Hennigan focuses on high-profile, high-stakes disputes in forums across the country, amassing an extraordinary record of precedent-setting victories. As a result of this work, the firm has been repeatedly recognized as a national “Top Boutique” by Benchmark Litigation and a “go-to firm for bet-the-farm litigation” by Chambers, among other recognitions.

Hueston argued that Rule 23(f), which provides a party with 14 days from the entry of a class certification order to file a petition for permission to appeal with the court of appeals, is an emphatic and mandatory claim-processing rule that is not subject to judge-made exception. Hueston further argued that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had improperly created “broad and unprecedented equitable exceptions” to excuse the Class Plaintiff’s late 23(f) petition, by essentially nullifying Rule 23(f)’s deliberately narrow 14-day interlocutory appeal window. As Hueston explained, Rule 23(f) was specifically crafted “to minimize the disruption and delay in the context of class action cases.”

This appeal arose after Hueston Hennigan successfully obtained class decertification at the district court, and Class Plaintiff/Appellee Lambert missed the deadline set forth in Rule 23(f), to file a petition for permission to appeal the order in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit nevertheless found that Rule 23(f) was subject to equitable exceptions, and then applied those exceptions to excuse Lambert’s late filing and reverse the district court. Hueston Hennigan sought certiorari of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which the Supreme Court granted in June.

Nutraceutical was also represented at the U.S. Supreme Court by John Hueston, Joseph Reiter and Michael Todisco.

See Law360 article, “Justices Weigh Missed Deadline In Nutraceutical False Ad Suit.”