Taste my tasty firstness!

Guys in my high school subjected women to a pattern of unwelcome sexual advances all the time. It was no big deal.

Unfortunately, 3:43-44, going back to add "tasty" to your post did not improve it, and muddled the issue of who was actually FIRST to say FIRST without double-posting.

As you sow, so shall you reap.

Shenaningans at the Patent Ball? It seems out of place. Does Pitcock have an undergard degree in engineering? That would explain his total awkwardness with women.

Paragraph 56 is the best in the complaint: "Pitcock alleged in his federal lawsuit that he is a 'rising star in [] litigation.' If so, he should have known there is no federal court subject matter jurisdiction over his lawsuit."

Pure. Gold.

I thought that was a cheap shot actually. Patent lawyers generally know squat about procedure.

On the other hand, the sexual harassment stuff is awesome. What a tool! You can bet the firm knew about this well before the Christmas party.

3:57 - I was just about to post that exact paragraph.

It makes for good reading, but why include it in a complaint? It has questionable legal significance (w/r/t a defamation suit, it could have been phrased much better) and comes off as an attempt to further defame Pitcock..

Is really fair to make vague allusions to anti-semitism at S&C when the future managing partner of the firm is an Orthodox Rabbi?

3:57, that's not gold, it's platinum.

This guy is about to get a 5 inch revisit of his bris.

I agree about that being a "cheap shot." It weakens an otherwise sharp complaint. The point of the lawsuit isn't that he's a shit lawyer -- it's that he is an allegedly prolific harasser. It comes across as a gratuitous dig.

I feel so bad for his wife, kid on the way? Wow. Just wow.

If he lives in New Jersey and the firm is in NY, how come there is no subject matter jurisdiction? Hardly seems like a "legal certainty" that the damages will not exceed $75,000.
Plus, the complaint reincorporates every paragraph from the previous causes of action, which is a no-no in most jurisdictions. (Just search for 11th Circuit opinions by Judge Tjoflat containing "shotgun pleading.") Maybe NY is different.

At least two of the female associates on the Kasowitz web site have removed their profile photos. . .

I can't believe how stupid this guy was to sue Kasowitz for defamation. Did he have the same idiot lawyer as Roger Clemens? You screwed up, you got caught, move on and lay low.

Unreal. Can't wait to read the divorce papers from wifey.

4:12 - it's a partnership, not a corporation.
Do the work.

Lat: I don't understand orthodox jew comment. anyone?

How stupid is this law firm? The guy can't get another job and has nothing to lose in dragging this out. The law firm on the other hand has to potentially drag out dozens of female associates to dish the dirt. How demeaning for them. Who'd want to work for this TTT then? How many laterals are NOT talking to them right now because of the history of this matter?

"Just search for 11th Circuit opinions by Judge Tjoflat containing "shotgun pleading." "

Listen, hotshot, any buffoon can make up fake judges to sound authoritative. See, for example, any of Judge Kpoostynt's views on this matter.

"Uncomfortable, Employee K walked away. As she did, Pitcock slapped her buttocks. Pitcock insisted that Employee L have drinks with him, threatening her that if she did not, he would change her title to 'office bitch.'"

There are just so many WOW moments here.

1. Interesting that even Sullivan & Cromwell uses disrespect as a verb (paragraph 3). The word must be standard English everywhere.
2. What is the difference between defamation and injurious falsehood?
3. I believe that if any other partner lives in N.J., there would be no diversity jurisdiction.
4. Why would anyone ask for a declaration that pleadings in another case have no merit. Is that something a court would issue a D.J. on?
5. Guys in my high school always plead that they repeat and reallege the prior paragraphs as if more fully set forth herein.

4:28 LOL
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/about/judges/tjoflat.php

-Judge Kpoostynt

I agree that publicizing the fact that the firm was supposedly clueless about this behavior for so long makes Kasowitz look bad. Going to hurt recruiting.

Paragraph 56... OH SNAP!!!

LOL:
33. Despite Employee F's insistence that Pitcock need not accompany her upstairs, Pitcock headed toward the elevator. The building doorman told Employee that he had just let her boyfriend go upstairs, a comment Pitcock apparently did not hear.
At the elevator, Employee F reiterated that Pitcock did not need to escort her, but Pitcock ignored her protestations.

34. Knowing that her boyfhend was inside the apartment and wanting him to answer the door, Employee F pretended that her keys were lost and knocked on her apartment door. Pitcock was surprised and asked Employee F why she was knocking on her own door. When told by Employee F that her boyfhend was inside the apartment, Pitcock said, "This will be awkward."

35. Employee F's boyfriend answered the door and let them into the apartment. With his plan for pursuing Employee F thwarted, Pitcock left as quickly as possible.

To "How stupid is this law firm?"

They just gutted, cleaned and cooked the guy. So I'd say not so stupid.

4:35, that's hilarious. "This will be awkward."

4:33 -- yes, disrespect has been successfully verbed.

Re: Paragraph 56. I don't know the facts, but the Complaint says he lives in NJ. Isn't it possible he has diversity jurisdiction if he is seeking more than 75K? Assuming, complete diversity amongst the parties (the PR FIrm and KB)?

Re: Paragraph 56. I don't know the facts, but the Complaint says he lives in NJ. Isn't it possible he has diversity jurisdiction if he is seeking more than 75K? Assuming, complete diversity amongst the parties (the PR FIrm and KB)?

Re: Paragraph 56. I don't know the facts, but the Complaint says he lives in NJ. Isn't it possible he has diversity jurisdiction if he is seeking more than 75K? Assuming, complete diversity amongst the parties (the PR FIrm and KB)?

Since every complaint I've ever seen drafted by my firm does the "repeat and reallege" thing, I looked up this "shotgun pleading" stuff. For anyone interested, here's what Tjoflat writes in an opinion (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/305/305.F3d.1293.00-13002.html):

"The second and third amended complaints are quintessential "shotgun" pleadings.9 The typical shotgun complaint contains several counts, each one incorporating by reference the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions. Consequently, in ruling on the sufficiency of a claim, the trial court must sift out the irrelevancies, a task that can be quite onerous.10 In this case, the proposed third amended complaint contains 127 paragraphs (six more than the second amended complaint) and nine counts, with each count incorporating by reference every paragraph that precedes it.11 Instead of requiring the plaintiffs to replead, the court attempted — and admirably so — to ascertain exactly which facts formed the basis of the plaintiffs' federal law claims."

THERE IS NO COMPLETE DIVERSITY IF EVEN ONE PARTNER IS A NJ DOMICILIARY!!! ENOUGH!!!

Lat, can we nominate this douchebag for Douchebag of the Year? Holy shit, what a douchebag.

4:39/4:40,

You forgot to reassert and reallege your first post in each successive post.

Would it be fair to say that most defamation lawsuits are a huge mistake? This and Clemens are obvious examples, but anyone should twice about initiating an action where the key issues are whether you did something horrible (or are a something horrible) and 2) your reputation. Talk about opening up the door.

Wow - just wow. What a scumbag.

Tjoflat is somewhat of an extremist on this stuff. He doesn't even like it when there is a fact section and each count incorporates all the pargraphs that come before count 1. But incorporating the actual counts as well truly drives him nuts.

Shouldn't the superlawyers at S&C know the rule about switching tenses? Compare "KBT&F Terminated PitcocK" with "Pitcock Pretends KPT&F Wronged Him."

4:31, I think you missed another good part of 42, just before your quote. More to the point of d-baggery:

"42. ... Employees J and K were standing together at the bar when Pitcock approached them, propositioned Employee J and bragged about his 'mansion' in New Jersey and his purported 'multi-million' salary, with which he said he 'could make [her] very happy.'"

4:46, it sounds to me like they're using the past tense to refer to an incident that occurred in the past, and the present tense to refer to something that is happening right now. What's the problem?

Any armchair psychiatrists out there want a crack at diagnosing this guy? There pretty much has to be a medical term for what this guy is.

/Douche bag, while accurate, is arguably not a medical term.

4.37 - they also cleaned, gutten and cooked all the female associates who will have to appear as witnesses, should they be dumb enough to take this to trial.

A "smart" law firm would have kept it in their pants and not fired off the press release in the first place. Look at where it has lead.

TTT if ever there was one.

Who the fuck practices in the Eleventh Circuit anyway? Repeating and realleging through the counts is standard practice here in the far more important and populous Ninth Circuit. I understand the same is true of the First and Second Circuits (given that S&C did it here, I'd be shocked if the 2nd ascribed to the idiosyncratic view of one crank judge in the middle of nowhere).

" 7. Defendant Pitcock is a citizen of New Jersey"; you can be a citizen of a state??

I'm from Canada - honest question

I'm still trying to figure out what upset KBT&F so much about M&F's announcement that they had to issue that press release of theirs in the first place. Geez, someone left your firm. Bygones.

4:49 - The problem is they use past tense in all of the allegations under the heading that uses present tense.

4:50...if you are seriously from Canada, and that is an honest question...

yes, we here in the usa are citizens both of the united states and of the state wherein we reside (if any).

4:50 - Yes, that's why the concept is called "diversity of citizenship."

Seems like the Kasowitz firm knew about Pitcock's mistreatment of women for some time and did squat about it. That firm is a sitting target for its own Title VII suit...

That alleged PDF link to the complaint just brings me back to the original post here.

4:52 -- ah, got it. sorry; didn't read the complaint, i was just going off your previous post. -4:49

Federalism, 4:50.

do canadians not have citizenship of their province/territory as well as of the commonwealth?

4:50 Canadian. It's in the articles too, but the 14th makes clear -

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Everyone puts arcane crap in complaints, usually because they're afraid of it getting dismissed for some stupid reason. E.g., the entire opening paragraph of the complaint. We all know from the title immediately above it's a complaint and we don't care who the lawyers are. And why does the only actor named Pitcock needed to be defined "Pitcock"?

Anyone know where this winner worked before Kasowitz? Probably didn't walk in their door and start acting like this. No doubt there are associates, paralegals and secretaries from his old firm(s) that will be coming out of the woodwork to tell their own stories about this guy. If this case actually goes through some discovery, it will be the gift that keeps on giving.

yeah but the 14th was only written to apply to former slaves. everyone knows that.

For the sake of my internal reading voice, is his name pronounced "Pit-cock" (as in, "Pit-dick") or "Pit-co" (as in, "Newco")?

4:57: Articles about the guy said he was at STB prior to Kasowitz.

4:50(3)

Yes, Atlanta is in the middle of nowhere. And I guess Florida doesn't count either.

But if you're going to be that arrogant, at least know the difference between "ascribe" and "subscribe."

Well I guess it's settled, repeatedly incorporating previous counts (which makes no sense, BTW) is acceptable practice in the most-reversed, laughingstock circuit in the land. Move on.

4:53(4), try this link for the Complaint:

http://abovethelaw.com/Kasowitz%20v%20Pitcock%20Complaint.pdf

4:12 - you misunderstand shotgun pleadings and judge tjoflat's condemnation of them. Shotgun pleadings are when you allege the kitchen sink stole your water at the same time you allege the toilet stole the same water. You are merely throwing any potential cause at your opponent hoping that something sticks (or like a shotgun, you shoot the single shot complaint that contains thousands of pellets of allegations hoping one thing hits what you're trying to shoot). Tjoflat says those are bad. When you have a cause of action that realleges all previous paragraphs it is just a typical complaint.

This is just awesome. Highly entertaining.

Best thing to hit biglaw since the Charney complaint.

5:02, from this, 4:12 seems right.

The typical shotgun complaint contains several counts, each one incorporating by reference the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions. Consequently, in ruling on the sufficiency of a claim, the trial court must sift out the irrelevancies, a task that can be quite onerous.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/305/305.F3d.1293.00-13002.html

Tjoflat sounds like a huge load and must suck to work for. In the opinion linked above, I can see lots of stuff wrong with his grammar, but I'm sure he thinks it's 100% correct.

Bigger dickbag: This Pitcock guy or Mike Stark?

5:09 -- Pitcock often made comments about sucking to work for a huge load. One of the things that led to this suit, actually.

Since people are quibbling with the complaint...

First, Microsoft Word allows you to insert an en dash. See, e.g., paragraph 4. You don't need to half-ass it and use two hyphens.

Second, paragraph 4 should have em dashes, not bastard en dashes, and there should not be spaces before or after the dashes.

Sounds to me like Pitcock was Pitcock-blocked.

5:06 -
That's not the point of it though. The point is that there were nine counts and all were simply a mish-mash in the opening paragraphs that did nothing but confuse a reader.

I dare you to find a complaint that does not incorporate by reference other paragraphs.

Guys in my high school use to incorporate by reference meaningless facts in their pleadings all the time. It was no big deal.

-Tjoflat's Frat Brother.

For those of you wondering what Pitcock is up to, you can direct all inquiries to the "Law Office of Jeremy Pitcock."

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/0A1/690

tabbing a full inch looks doopid, too. why not right justify too to complete the "brochure" look?

tabbing a full inch looks doopid, too. why not right right justify too to complete the "brochure" look?

4:41 - you don't even have to go as far as finding another partner, the firm itself has an office in Newark. No diversity here.

5:19(1) -- Wow. The guy had a good career going considering he went to Penn State Law - Philly Campus. Shame.

People may have different conceptions about what constitutes a shotgun pleading, but in the opinion of Judge Tjoflat any complaint where each count incorporates all prior counts qualifies.
His main beef seems to be that only facts material to a count or claim should be included in that count or claim (not "cause of action," a "cause of action" properly refers to the transaction or occurrence giving rise to a claim or multiple claims--notwithstanding New York's longstanding and incorrect pleading practice of labeling counts as causes of action).

amazing, especially for an ip guy. this should only get better as things proceed

I wonder whether this fellow, Pitcock, was the person at Kasowitz that has visited my blog on multiple occassions.

Furthermore, and as an aside, however adolescent xoxo'ers seem to be, these people did get my blog some attention.

I sure wish I had been countersued. At least what happened wouldn't have been swept under the legal rug.

My apologies for my fixation on my own circumstance. It's not going to over until it's over.

It's one thing to set out a bunch of facts material to all counts and then incorporate those. Incorporating the previous counts, though, makes no sense--unless one of the later counts is derivative of an earlier count, such as in a vicarious liability context.

I can't believe we've finally gotten the scandalous details of this guy's "extremely inappropriate personal behavior," and all you people want to talk about is shotgun pleading and diversity jurisdiction.

For shame.

4:27 and 4:50 -- before you assume that the firm will have to force the associates to testify, did you ever consider that a group of smart, strong-willed women might be willing to take on this douchebag and end his career once and for all? Maybe for revenge; maybe to make this profession better for all of us (and I'm a guy, but I have a daughter...); maybe because testifying is just the right thing to do -- and none of them did ANYTHING wrong.

Spectacularly stupid is Mr. Pitcock.

I have an Andrew Jackson that says he will someday be convicted of a number of murders of prostitutes along some backwoods state highway...

Reason #1 why ATL commenters suck: On a thread detailing and linking to a ridiculously salacious complaint, numerous commenters are instead quibbling about shotgun pleadings.

Paragraph 41: Yeah, right.

no, 5:23, you're misinterpreting Tjoflat's statement. It's not the incorporation by reference that makes an approach "shotgun," it's when the such incorporation by reference "[leads] to a situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions."

The worst part about this is that there are probably a lot of other lawyers out there who are exactly like this guy.

"I'm still trying to figure out what upset KBT&F so much about M&F's announcement that they had to issue that press release of theirs in the first place. Geez, someone left your firm. Bygones."

Disagree. They fired his ass and the new firm put out an ad saying he "jumped ship" and creating the impression, however slight, that he was moving on to greener pastures. My only question is why they didn't sue M&F and/or Pitcock for libel/slander/defamation (sorry I'm a corporate lawyer, forgot the difference) for M&F's press release.

I don't get it. What did this guy do wrong?

Harmless flirting is not a breach of fiduciary duty.

If this is all true, this guy is crazy!! It's hard to believe that higher ups in the firm didn't hear about this before the Christmas party. If there was no formal complaint, there'd at least be rumors about this behavior.

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Pitcock&fname=Jeremy

He's a Democrat.

If that guy was better looking, his tactics likely would have succeeded.

For any procedural nerds who were wondering why KB's suit wasn't fashioned as a cross-complaint, a PACER search revealed that Pitcock voluntarily dismissed his federal court action on July 3 (in the face of a LETTER submitted by S&C to Judge Sprizzo explaining how sanctionably absurd the assertion of federal jurisdiction was). Pitcock will now no doubt re-file in state court, but now he will be the cross-complainant. What a fundamental error on Pitcock's attorney's part.

5:43 wrote: "Disagree. They fired his ass and the new firm put out an ad saying he "jumped ship" and creating the impression, however slight, that he was moving on to greener pastures. My only question is why they didn't sue M&F and/or Pitcock for libel/slander/defamation (sorry I'm a corporate lawyer, forgot the difference) for M&F's press release."

5:43, M&F's press release did not say Pitcock "jumped ship", it just announced he joined the firm. It was a third party news report that said that he "jumped ship" (and that M&F "nabbed" him), and it was that article that pissed Kasowitz off. It's all in the prior news reports and in the Pitcock complaint.

Besides, what would the defamation have been? That M&F isn't really "greener pastures"?

5:19 Nice find on the Linked In profile. Couldn't help but notice he was the MIT football team captain. Didn't know that MIT had a football team...

5:28: agree. If I were one of those associates, I would want to tell the world about what a disgusting loser this guy is. I do feel really bad for his wife and kids though. When that baby gets old enough to google, yikes...

The link for "My Company" on his LinkedIn profile links to the Kasowitz homepage.

If a woman had behaved like this, she'd be called a stud.

Posted by guest 4:01 PM

"I thought that was a cheap shot actually. Patent lawyers generally know squat about procedure."

this patent lawyer thinks that anyone who describes himself as a "rising star" in litigation doesn't get to use the "just a patent lawyer" excuse.

What was has absurd jurisdictional argument?

I meant "his"

6:01: the defamation (or libel, or slander or whatever) would have been that he quit when he was in fact fired. But your point is taken that it wasn't M&F's words.

Re: 6:17--
Pitcock asserted diversity jurisdiction as the basis for bringing his suit in federal court. The glaring problem was that there was no complete diversity, because the defendant Kasowitz firm, as a partnership, is a citizen of every state in which any partner is a citizen. Obviously there are some Kasowitz partners who are citizens of NJ as Pitcock is. Therefore, no diversity; therefore no grounds for federal jurisdiction for Pitcock's state law based claims.

Is Pitcock a lawyer or a porn star?

kasowitz has essentially not only ruined pitcock's reputation but also destroyed this guy's marriage and family. that's cold. i hope that s&c at least negotiated with pitcock in advance and warned him "hey, if you don't drop this suit, we're gonna hit you with this". while this guy seems like a real sleazebag, his wife and kids did not do anything to deserve this.

go BALESTRIERE LANZA!

to 7:10, so if you were the wife, would you rather know now, or later?

This is seriously epic. I knew something grand was afoot when I first heard this guy's name on ATL a year (or longer) ago - I had no idea it would turn out to be this bloody EPIC though. So awesome.

This guy is such, such a tool. Feel bad for the wife and kids though.

The statement from Pitcock's lawyers is pure comedy gold, too. Talk about a shotgun complaint? This is a shotgun press release. The complaints of the women Pitcock harassed don't count because they were forced by 'old white guys' to lie, and if they weren't they should have gone to the EEOC, and if they didn't they were asking for it or something, anyway we're not going to talk about the butt-slapping but if he did say inappropriate thinks, they were jokes and everybody was drunk. So there!

@7:17: the best thing about the press release is it kind of says "hey, yeah, most of that stuff happened - but it wasn't as bad as the complaint makes it out to be, seriously!"

7:14 - if i were the wife, i'd rather find out privately, especially considering i'm not even a public figure.

7:22 - i heard lat's next big scoop will be an exclusive interview with mrs. pitcock where she will embrace her newfound publicity and leverage it into millions on the talk show circuit and a book about how to cope when you find out your husband is a dirtbag.

7:10, have you considered the possibility that Pitcock ruined his own marriage?

7:10 here - yes, pitcock ruined his own marriage and if i were the wife, i'd want to know now. my concern is that this is really a private matter and i have compassion for this woman who now has to endure the spectacular destruction of her family in public. although, leading on 7:25 - if she's savvy and stable enough emotionally, i agree that she should hire herself a PR agent and shoot for her 15 minutes worth. i also feel terrible for his young kids. in the age of google, these transgressions will hang over them for their lives.

Has anyone considered the possibility that this is all a farce? Is it really true that a man named Pitcock was an oversexed fiend who tried to sleep with anything that moved? It might be believable if he had a normal name, but this sounds like an advertising campaign by Cinemax for a late-night show.

Yeah, 7:37--good point. what's next? an oversexed doctor named Mountaindick?

very clever cinemax - you had us fooled by not using the standard names like Hugh Jazz or Haywood Jablome.