McAfee Gets SmackAfeed: Suit Against WilmerHale Dismissed
If you were hoping that the $12 million lawsuit against WilmerHale that we mentioned earlier this week was going to give rise to lots of juicy discovery, followed by a full-blown trial, we're sorry to disappoint you. Last night we received the following press release from the firm:
United States District Judge Michael Schneider of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas heard argument [yesterday] on WilmerHale's motion to dismiss McAfee's lawsuit against the firm. Judge Schneider ruled from the bench, dismissing McAfee's lawsuit in its entirety on four independent grounds, including failure to state a legally valid claim.
Ruling from the bench? Complete dismissal? Ouch.
And note the four -- yup, four -- independent grounds. That's quite a lot of bulletproofing. We haven't seen a transcript of the ruling, but it sounds like this could be fairly well-protected against reversal on appeal.
Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: McAfee Sues WilmerHale for Alleged Overbilling
(29) Comments
Posted In: WilmerHale
First bitches!!!!
Orangejello D'Awesome
first.
#1
#2 is Lemonjello
- Orangejello
What is "bulletproofing"?
D'oh!
maybe mcafee will now sue for malpractice the attorney it used to sue wilmer ?
#1 is fat-free instant pudding.
-#2
SmackAfeed? *groan*
Oh #2, if you only knew me...there ain't nuthin about Orangejello D'Awesome that is fat-free
Guys at my high school used to eat lemonjello all the time, it was no big deal.
-#2
Well, that was short lived. Looks like WilmerHale came out OK.
Hoochie-mammas at my middle school used to name their illegitimate twins orangejello and lemonjello all the time. It was no big deal.
- Orangejello D'Awesome
I am the gatekeeper
I am the keymaster
what are the 4 independent grounds?
We must prepare for the coming of Gozer!
I feel sad for Yetter, Warden & Coleman that it didn't get the opportunity to charge more fees.
4 Grounds:
(1) Fraud not pled with particularity.
(2) Forum selection clause required suit in Delaware.
(3) Because criminal case is ongoing the case is not ripe.
(4) Defendant from original criminal case is an indispensible party b/c it is his privilege that is going to be violated.
If these are the grounds, probably dismissed w/o prejudice - maybe we'll see it refiled in Delaware after the crim case is resolved.
I hope Crusty Old Guy comes back on this thread and tells us that $12 million for a criminal defense trial is patently on its face ridiculous because OJ's trial only cost $3 million.
Damn homey
$12 million for a criminal defense trial is patently on its face ridiculous because OJ's trial only cost $3 million! RIDICULOUS
-crusty old guy
18,
Um, wouldn't "failure to state a legally valid claim" need to be one of the four grounds?
20 - indeed, although imho, the "McAfee has the better case, on its face, because $12 million is such a huge number" guy/girl is much more likely a 1L ingenue who has yet to review a document in anger than a crusty old man remembering that back in his day, defending rich criminals only cost $3 million.
23,
Um, no it wouldnt.
Hey Orangejello, mamma loved me more than u!
- Lemonjello
Williams & Connolly represented Wilmer. Score (another) one for W&C.
Sounds like McAfee got smacked with even more unnecessary fees. The lawyers that filed the case should have known better.
LOL 9:03. Interestingly, the same attorney that brought this suit against WilmerHale also defended McAfee in a patent infringement case brought by DeepNines. In a very recent jury verdict, DeepNines won to the tune of $18 million with more damages to come for false marking.