Bravo! The court should have awarded Rule 11 sanctions to C&B. Ms. Young's complaint ranks up there with one of the most frivolous pleadings I have ever seen.

Showing up is half the battle.

6th!

Prediction -- she'll refile and next time it will get dismissed with prejudice

"Anti-climatic"? What does the weather have to do with this post?

Elie, learn how to spell.

Do you know what "without prejudice" means?

Not showing up for a hearing? That just further proves how terrible a lawyer Yolanda Young is, besides getting a C average in law school and taking three years to pass the bar.

Last time I checked, "incompetence" is not one of the protected grounds under Title VII

Covington is German for "Steaming pile of whale vagina."

SkaddenDC

"first round knock down"

lol. knock out?

and "without prejudice," why the celebration for covington?

Awesome advocacy by Gump. They truly are Americas firm.

Awesome advocacy by Gump. They truly are Americas firm.

Yes, but Yolanda won the battle!. With the staff attorney firings the "ghetto" (as she calls it) is being broken up and Covington will no longer hire minority staff attorneys in an attempt to bolster their diversity numbers. The staff attorneys that remain will now properly mirror the racial make-up of the rest of the attorneys at the firm. Way to go Yolanda, you did it!

2,

Given that it was dismissed without prejudice, rule 11 sanctions are inappropriate.

Certainly bolsters Covington's claim that she was fired for being a lousy lawyer.

I wonder if the office had a NCAA-like pool going on the odds of dismissal...

P.S. Yolanda, like Sotomayor, is a racist.

After the ruling, Sotomayor was heard saying:

"This is fine. Anyway, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Black female who hasn’t lived that life. Adios, Yolanda!"

Snap!

14, exactly. This idiot's complaint and her complaining, solved in the way she would like, would hurt minority attorneys. Her solution to low minority numbers among associates is to make minority staff attorneys into associates, or something. Yeah, the 2 black or latino associates in a Big Law office would just shed a tear in pride if that came to pass. That would be a leap forward for minority lawyers, wouldn't it. I hate her. And her complaint is insane, illiterate, nonsense and a pitiful shame to a person holding a license to practice.

Uh, you know that dismissals without prejudice don't really mean anything, right?

Judge Walton = Racist

I get this suspicious feeling that Elie "full force of a victory" MysTTTal doesn't know what "without prejudice" means.

Give her a boddy bag yeahhhhhh!

24,

Genius!

Wow I cannot imagine why on earth they would fire such a bright young legal mind.

I would like to have a wax on, wax off session with Kash.

Ugh. Dismissal without prejudice just means she can re-file when she gets her act together. Not so much a win as a it is a loss of 400 bucks in filing fees.

Sotomayor is a racist burrito stealer.
Kash's asslobster is not.

Johnny, get back into line. I'll handle this.

Yolanda - thanks for letting us all down. At the very least you could have made them work for the dismisal. Did you miss the memo? Would your current contract gig not let you go to court? Better yet I bet you were hung over so you could not get up. Whatever the case - very lame.

[Klink]DISSSSSSS_MISSED![/Klink]

Without prejudice="you must now spend a few hundred bucks in filing and service fees to reinstitute this action. Carry on."

My god, stop the lame Karate Kid references already.

For a second there I thought I didn't know what "without prejudice" means given that Elie said that this was a huge victory for the firm. Then I remembered Elie doesn't know what the word means.

Wasn't she quoted on ATL yesterday?

Hey, could you please have Eliza, that blonde broad, Marin, Laurie, Roxanne, Kash or Lat review future drafts of postings? It would be better for ALL of us. Fuck, even that Evan douchebag could catch errors like misunderstanding the lack of significance to a dismissal without preudice.

35, I did the exact same thing!! I thought, "Man, I've had that term wrong for 5 years? Really?" Then I realized nope, not me. Elie Really? You went to a good school?

She's not treating this like the incredible learning opportunity it could be.

I wonder if Akin will now tout this as a "win" on its website.

If she pulled that stunt in justice “hard case” Hardcastle’s court room, he’d put her on his list of ne’er-do-wells that need to be put away.

- 34

I'll decide when he's had enough!

Congratulations to Gump for beating up on a retarded kid. Of course, since Gump IS a retarded kid, this does count as a victory for them.

42: Eat me. (I know you want to.)

43 = racist. Just because Yolanda Young only got into GULC, received a C average, and failed the bar for three years, does not make her retarded.

Amused at how ATL can barely hide their displeasure in the dismissal, and how quick they are to blame this hack's attorney for the dismissal.

I have no love for "BigLaw" but I hate to see anyone get taken to the cleaners by some no-talent bum... which (perhaps paradoxically) describes my view of most attorneys at firms like this.

This LOSER should've researched "at will employment" before deciding to become a lawyer.

Hillary: Please resign and run against this marxist clown in the 2012 primary.

You's all is meen. I ain't gonna let you's all disenfranchize my civil rites on here. I'm gonna sue you in Federals Court. But thanks for havin my back, Mystal.

-- Yolanda

I wonder if her handling of this lawsuit is any indication of what type of associate she would have been.

Recall this complaint was filed initially in D.C. Superior Court. Because Young alleged violations of District and federal law in each of the complaint's three counts, Covington was able to remove the case to federal court.

Dismissal without prejudice means she'll just refile in D.C. Superior Court alleging violations based solely on D.C. law -- which is exactly where she wants to be. This case isn't over yet. Not even close.

Miyagi: Wax on... wax off. Wax on... wax off.
Miyagi: First, wash all car. Then wax. Wax on...
Daniel: Hey, why do I have to...?
Miyagi: Ah ah! Remember deal! No questions!
Daniel: Yeah, but...
Miyagi: Hai!
[makes circular gestures with each hand]
Miyagi: Wax on, right hand. Wax off, left hand. Wax on, wax off. Breathe in through nose, out the mouth. Wax on, wax off. Don't forget to breathe, very important.
[walks away, still making circular motions with hands]
Miyagi: Wax on, wax off. Wax on, wax off.

51

That works for women as well as cars.

Dismissal before an answer, even without prejudice, means the client, her lawyer, or likely both fucked up big time.

Yolanda Young now joins Anthony Ciolli (whose case against a Doe in E.D.Pa. was bounced for failure to serve said Doe, even though her location and employer had been disclosed by Conde-Nast Portfolio) as a certified, no-talent ass clown hack.

What do you expect from someone named Yolanda "affirmative action hire" Young. She probably got social promotions all through grade school.

Mr. Miyagi = Racist

This is pathetic. Even though it was clearly a frivolous lawsuit all she had to do was demand a jury and keep her case from being totally dismissed. C&B would have feared what a DC jury would do and given her some settlement.

Also, I think (unless Elie edited this post after the first few comments), he understood what "without prejudice" meant since he wrote "Will there be a round two?"

FACT: Nobody named Yolanda will ever amount to anything.

@2
"ranks up there with one of the most frivolous pleadings I have ever seen."

Save the one you made to your Dominatrix in his dungeon last week.

You turn me on to the idea of growing old.

2 & 58,

Probably about 90% of employment discrimination cases are frivolous.

About 5% are not frivolous but frivolous in that the plaintiff has no documentation or friendly witnesses.

The remaining 5% are winnable cases.

what an idiot

@56. I'm pretty sure he changed it.

14: In no way is this a "victory" for staff attorneys or any civil rights issue. I'm quite sure that the staff attorneys at Covington and other firms who are downsizing due to the economy are very sad and scared to be losing their jobs. It's not as if these attorneys are ever going to end up working at Covington or "big law" through any other vehicle. Covington's brief outlines how staff attorneys explicitly do not meet their qualifications/requirements for associate attorney positions -- these people did not go to top law schools, did not get good grades, and overall are not highly sought after or they'd have regular jobs. Covington's decision to scale back the program is entirely due to the economy, and you'd an idiot for thinking that this is a victory in any way for people who 1) will never get normal positions at prestigious law firms or 2) purposefully wanted hourly, mindless work that allows them to pay the bills while focusing on other things.

Covington still has to worry about restatement (second) of contracts

Most of you "lawyers" are just doc review monkeys who have yet to learn anything about trial strategy. Maybe she wanted the suit to be dismissed so that she could re-file in a more advantageous forum. Donkeys.

Most of you "lawyers" are just doc review monkeys who have yet to learn anything about trial strategy. Maybe she wanted the suit to be dismissed so that she could re-file in a more advantageous forum. Donkeys.

Not only did Elie miss the critical distinction between with and without prejudice, he made the utterly ridiculous claim that Covington "gets all the benefit of a settlement (no discovery, no depositions, no lingering issues), but with the full force of a victory the firm can tout in the press." If Elie had ever practiced law he'd have known that one of the primary benefits of a settlement agreement is the covenant to not litigate the matter as well as a covenant to not disparage. Covington received NO benefit you'd associate with a settlement, Elie.

Frivolous lawsuits make me a saaad panda.

Hooray for case dismissed.

Most of you "Havalinas" are just doc review Chimpanzees who have yet to learn anything about sailing strategy. Maybe she wanted the suit to be dismissed so that she could re-file in a more adventurous forum. Doctors.

Yolanda is that dumb loudmouthed bitch strutting down the sidewalk with a cell phone glued to her ear.

She was an idiot who deserved what she got: being fired and now mocked.

She was an idiot who deserved what she got: being fired, and now mocked.

Kind of ironic, dontcha think?

69 - brilliant. except, what more advantageous forum than DC is there? (since Covington is in DC, and so is she.)

plus, even if that was the "strategy," she could have just dismissed her complaint without prejudice per Rule 41(a), and then re-filed it elsewhere.

filing a complaint & then not showing up to court/having it dismissed for failure to prosecute does not strike me as cunning litigation strategy.

65,69 - you're a moron.

15 - you're a moron.

You geniuses who harp on "without prejudice" fail to understand why it dooms her case: dwop means her suit did not halt the statute of limitations, and so if she re-files her case will be dismissed on SOL grounds. In these circumstances a "without prejudice" dismissal is as good to the defendant as one with prejudice.

What amazes me is how indulgent the court is in D.C. Federal judges where I practice are known for holding people in contempt and/or issuing sanctions on attorneys who miss scheduling conferences. This lawyer blew off multiple court orders-- I can't believe they don't crack down on that kind of behavior.

An employment defense lawyer told me the quality of the plaintiff's bar in employment cases is mostly very low; this, together with the fact that most such cases are not good on merits, contributes to the high dismissal rates.

63: Really? It's called "sarcasm" - google it. Take your helmet off first.

63: Really? It's called "sarcasm" - google it. Take your helmet off first.

King & Spalding Socked with $90k Discovery Sanction
This is one of those "think before you leap" lessons. Lawyer A says Lawyer B had obstructed discovery and misrepresented facts to the court. Judge says he's going to figure out who's telling the truth. He did so. Essentially, the court lambasted K&S's counsel for accusing Duane Morris's counsel of being uncooperative in discovery. The order in the patent infringement suit of CBT Flint Partners v. Return Path, No. 1:07-CV-1822 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 2008) is here:

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/PDF/PDF%20Archive/Cisco-order2-081908.pdf

and the an article about it, is here:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423885428

Based upon my experience there, this is how they operate all of the time in all offices and in all practice areas - a cut throat, unprofessional, and, often, unethical law firm

Why would anyone in their right mind hire King and Spalding ?

King & Spalding Socked with $90k Discovery Sanction
This is one of those "think before you leap" lessons. Lawyer A says Lawyer B had obstructed discovery and misrepresented facts to the court. Judge says he's going to figure out who's telling the truth. He did so. Essentially, the court lambasted K&S's counsel for accusing Duane Morris's counsel of being uncooperative in discovery. The order in the patent infringement suit of CBT Flint Partners v. Return Path, No. 1:07-CV-1822 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 2008) is here:

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/PDF/PDF%20Archive/Cisco-order2-081908.pdf

and the an article about it, is here:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423885428

Based upon my experience there, this is how they operate all of the time in all offices and in all practice areas - a cut throat, unprofessional, and, often, unethical law firm

Why would anyone in their right mind hire King and Spalding ?

Not the first time a minority lawyer from Georgetown has complained...

I think African American Georgetown law grads are the problem.

76 is probably right.

What is important is that the judge did NOT remand the case to the D.C. Superior Court, but instead dismissed it. If she refiles in the Superior Court (or even the federal court), but only on the D.C. statutory claims, then there is a potential statute of limitations problem.

I am not sure that a new complaint in a new docket can relate back to an old complaint in another docket, in contrast to simply amending a complaint.

63 = Yolanda? Who else wouldn't have understood the sarcasm..... - 14

82,

take a look at 666 F.2d 606 and 815 f.2d 26- under either D.C. law, or federal law, if a suit is dismissed without prejudice, it did not interrupt the running of the SOL and the new complaint is prescribed.

I wonder if her lawyer was also a former "staff attorney" somewhere. Sheesh, these two deserve each other.

Its totally racist to expect the plaintiff to show up or respond to things. She sued for being fired while black. Why hasn't she just been given free access to C&B bank account yet?

I am dogged about righting wrongs directed at me. If she does not pursue the claim with some degree of vigilance, then the only explanation is that she is a liar and a loser.

I actually learned something USEFUL on ATL today about SOLs! Thank you!

She can file a motion for reconsideration. That's how she might get back in the game.

Her lawyer, Latif Doman, is a 1995 Penn Law grad. Isn't 3 years at Penn and 15 years of practice enough to teach you not to blow off court orders? Here is his resume:

http://www.osse.dc.gov/seo/frames.asp?doc=/seo/lib/seo/pdf/student_hearing/resume%20-%20latif%20doman.pdf

here are some of his outside interests

http://speakeasystorycast.com/index.php?post_id=448716

Actually he seems like a nice guy. However, how do you screw up a case this badly? Besides wanting to do a good job, I'm so scared of the disciplinary authorities breathing down my neck I'm too cautious to ever miss court. Sheesh.

88, are you familiar with the requirements to file a motion for reconsideration? What newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable or incorrect application of the law by the court was found by Ms. Young?

84 -- Thanks. I think you mean "proscribed" (not "prescribed"), but those two cases are right on point.

She sued her employer. She is likely to sue the lawyer next.

91,

nah, I just used the "civil law" term of prescription. :)

Yolanda was probably overwhelmed with the defense tactics. She was pro se to begin with. Plaintiff lawyers do not want to go against big firms, and lawyers claiming discrimination do not get any sympathy (as we can tell from the posts). She has to be going through a very difficult emotional and (possibly) financial time. This is just an example of big firms getting away with their illegal conduct because they have the resources to bury anybody who dares to speak up. We will never learn the truth. This is not a win for equal justice under the law.

94,

she failed to show up for a court-ordered conference. What defense "tactic" could have overwhelmed her?

I worked with Yolanda at Covington, I am black, and I can safely say she is an opportunistic, vindictive, bitter person with zero intelligence. I liked my job at Covington, and it gave me the credentials to move on to bigger things. Thanks for messing things up Yolanda, and for trying to ruin innocent people's careers in the process. You are a black person's worst nightmare.