Law firms in Meta antitrust lawsuit clash over lead role
Judge scrapped prior order appointing both firms as co-counsel
Quinn Emanuel denies discounting female attorney at Hagens Berman
By Mike Scarcella
Feb 6(Reuters) -Two major U.S. law firms are feuding over which one will lead a consumer antitrust class action against Meta Platforms Inc's META.O Facebook, after a judge scrapped a prior order appointing them both as co-leaders for the plaintiffs and started from scratch.
U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco said in January that he would make a new determination to select one of the firms to lead the class action amid quarreling between Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. Part of the clash included a Hagens Berman partner accusing Quinn Emanuel of discounting her views based on her gender. Quinn Emanuel denied the allegation, calling it a "mystery."
"I have significant experience-based qualms about these multi-headed plaintiff-side structures," Donato said at a recent hearing in the case, as he heard about the dispute and wiped out a 2021 order by another judge who appointed both firms. "You don't need them."
The underlying case involves class claims from consumers and advertisers that Facebook exploited user data to maintain its market power. The company has denied the allegations from both sets of class plaintiffs.
The two law firms on Friday night submitted their pitches to Donato about why he should appoint them solely rather than jointly to lead the consumer class.
In its filing, Quinn Emanuel said partner KevinTeruya was the "architect of the consumer class's case." Hagens Berman in its submission questioned Quinn Emanuel's rates, suggesting they were too high.
Plaintiffs' firms routinely vie for court-appointed leadership roles in class actions, allowing them to steer litigation and potentially to recover bigger portions of legal fees in cases that settle or win at trial.
A representative from Hagens Berman did not immediately comment, and a Quinn Emanuel spokesperson declined to comment.
The lawyers who are seeking to lead the consumer class — Shana Scarlett of Hagens Berman and Teruya of Quinn Emanuel — did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
In court last month, Scarlett said "this case has presented a set of circumstances where I feel that my voice has not been equally heard." Teruya said at the hearing that his firm has "worked very hard to be cooperative with all counsel on the case, including female counsel."
Donato told the lawyers "it sounds like it's been more than just honest differences of opinion."
Hagens Berman is a 80-lawyer plaintiffs' firm based in Seattle, and Los Angeles-based Quinn Emanuel, with more than 900 attorneys, represents plaintiffs while also defending companies in business litigation. Hagens Berman and Quinn Emanuel have been on opposite sides in other cases.
The case is Klein v. Meta Platforms Inc, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 5:20-cv-08570.
Read more:
U.S. appeals court tosses $185 million Quinn Emanuel fee award in Obamacare case
U.S. judge warns law firms in Clearview AI lawsuit over 'disarray'
In Facebook antitrust case, Quinn Emanuel feuds with rival law firm over leadership role
Reporting by Mike Scarcella; editing by Leigh Jones
Últimas notícias
Isenção de Responsabilidade: As entidades do XM Group proporcionam serviço de apenas-execução e acesso à nossa plataforma online de negociação, permitindo a visualização e/ou uso do conteúdo disponível no website ou através deste, o que não se destina a alterar ou a expandir o supracitado. Tal acesso e uso estão sempre sujeitos a: (i) Termos e Condições; (ii) Avisos de Risco; e (iii) Termos de Responsabilidade. Este, é desta forma, fornecido como informação generalizada. Particularmente, por favor esteja ciente que os conteúdos da nossa plataforma online de negociação não constituem solicitação ou oferta para iniciar qualquer transação nos mercados financeiros. Negociar em qualquer mercado financeiro envolve um nível de risco significativo de perda do capital.
Todo o material publicado na nossa plataforma de negociação online tem apenas objetivos educacionais/informativos e não contém — e não deve ser considerado conter — conselhos e recomendações financeiras, de negociação ou fiscalidade de investimentos, registo de preços de negociação, oferta e solicitação de transação em qualquer instrumento financeiro ou promoção financeira não solicitada direcionadas a si.
Qual conteúdo obtido por uma terceira parte, assim como o conteúdo preparado pela XM, tais como, opiniões, pesquisa, análises, preços, outra informação ou links para websites de terceiras partes contidos neste website são prestados "no estado em que se encontram", como um comentário de mercado generalizado e não constitui conselho de investimento. Na medida em que qualquer conteúdo é construído como pesquisa de investimento, deve considerar e aceitar que este não tem como objetivo e nem foi preparado de acordo com os requisitos legais concebidos para promover a independência da pesquisa de investimento, desta forma, deve ser considerado material de marketing sob as leis e regulações relevantes. Por favor, certifique-se que leu e compreendeu a nossa Notificação sobre Pesquisa de Investimento não-independente e o Aviso de Risco, relativos à informação supracitada, os quais podem ser acedidos aqui.
