Rachael Meny has extensive experience handling trade secret and employee mobility disputes, complex civil litigations and white collar criminal matters. She has successfully represented companies, venture funds and partnerships, and individuals in litigation regarding trade secrets/employee mobility, securities fraud, mortgage fraud, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, breaches of fiduciary duty, breaches of contract claims, Business and Professions Code Section 17200, unfair business practices, antitrust and intellectual property matters.
Ms. Meny has extensive experience representing technology companies, other companies and executives throughout the U.S. in pre-litigation and litigation disputes regarding trade secrets, employee mobility and non-competition matters. Ms. Meny litigates such matters in state and federal courts, but also frequently provides counseling and advice on pre-litigation disputes that allows such matters to be successfully resolved before litigation.
Ms. Meny has also represented individuals in numerous internal corporate investigations, and governmental agency investigations involving the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice.
Cobarruviaz, et al. v. Instacart
We defeated a putative class action filed against a leading on-demand technology company, Instacart, which connects customers with personal shoppers for grocery shopping and home delivery. The class action addressed an issue critical to the new “sharing economy”: whether personal shoppers who use Instacart’s technology platform were properly considered independent contractors rather than employees. The court issued its order dismissing the class action claims on November 3, 2015.
Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc.
We represent technology company Lyft, which connects individuals in need of a ride to drivers willing to transport them. This putative class action addresses an issue critical to the new economy: whether Lyft drivers have been misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees. In summer 2016, the parties entered into a proposed settlement that does not require the re-classification of Lyft drivers as employees. The court approved the settlement in early 2017.
Former Employee v. Netflix, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc.
We defended Netflix and several of its senior executives from a high-profile defamation and blacklisting lawsuit. The plaintiff departed Netflix for Amazon, and later claimed that Netflix retaliated against him by making defamatory statements about him, wrongfully accusing him of taking confidential information, and inducing Amazon to fire him. We filed an early special motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint against the Netflix defendants pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, explaining why the plaintiff’s claims against the Netflix defendants were entirely premised on protected and privileged speech and did not establish a viable claim. The court granted our anti-SLAPP motion in its entirety, dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims against the Netflix defendants only 5 ½ months after the complaint was filed.
Suffolk Technologies LLC v. AOL Inc. and Google Inc.
A Virginia federal judge granted our motion for summary judgment on all but one of Suffolk’s patent infringement claims, and issued a Daubert ruling striking the plaintiff’s expert damages opinion in its entirety. Soon after, Suffolk stipulated to invalidity on the last remaining claim. Suffolk had claimed that Google’s Adsense advertising placement technology, which selectively places paid advertisements for a company’s product or service on the Web page of another, used a similar protocol to the one under patent with Suffolk.
Taxi Company v. Ride-Sharing Company
We defended a popular ride-sharing company in this unfair competition case. Prior to the hearing on the first motion, we convinced the plaintiffs to dismiss our client from the complaint.
Microsoft Corporation v. Google Inc.
We defended Google in numerous state and federal court actions alleging trade secret misappropriation. The litigation began when our client left Microsoft Corporation to head Google’s China operations. We litigated the case through the preliminary injunction stage and resolved it on favorable terms.
Plaintiff v. Investment Funds
We achieved an early resolution of numerous state and federal court actions for a venture fund company and one of its partners. Our clients faced trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, and breach of contract claims in both state court and in federal court. We were able to remove the state court action to federal court, and then secure an early settlement for our clients.
Plaintiffs v. Real Estate Investors
We defended certain real estate investors against alter ego claims, in both state and federal court. These alter ego claims were brought in an effort to hold our clients personally liable for a $7.5 million judgment against their company and to pierce the corporate veil protecting our client's real estate investment firm. Following a multi-week bench trial, the court entered judgment for our clients and awarded them attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs v. Automobile Manufacturers
We defended automakers in multi-forum, antitrust litigation involving restrictions on car exports in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Plaintiffs, alleging a broad conspiracy among all major automobile manufacturers and distributors, sought damages of more than $1 billion. We won summary judgment in the lead federal litigation, in several state cases, and in the California state court class action. We also achieved early dismissal of numerous state court actions.
Private School System v. Northern California County
We defended a California county and certain of its Supervisors against claims that its land use decision regarding a Christian school violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and aspects of the US Constitution. After a multi-week trial in federal court, a jury resolved the case in our client’s favor, denying the school system's request for tens of millions in damages. The plaintiff appealed, but withdrew their appeal after receiving our appellate brief.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Telecommunications Company
On behalf of a special committee of our client's board of directors, we conducted an international investigation into alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA.) We made a determination as to whether any FCPA violations occurred and handled the resolution of related governmental investigations and claims.
Henderson v. Petersen et al
We represented a prisoner in a civil rights suit against three correctional officers who beat him in Pelican Bay State Prison and one officer who failed to intervene to stop the beating. After the plaintiff's case survived summary judgment, the federal court asked us to step in and represent him at trial. Following a five-day trial and five hours of jury deliberation, the defendants settled the case for nearly twice the number the plaintiff presented to the jury.
October 02, 2017
The Recorder has named Christa Anderson and Rachel Meny among the 2017 Women Leaders in Tech Law. Read more
Ms. Anderson and Ms. Meny represent the who's who of San Francisco Bay Area technology companies. Read more
With cutting-edge clients like Lyft Inc., Google Inc. and Netflix Inc., much of Meny’s work focuses on how traditional employment agreements and job classifications apply to 21st century businesses. Read more
Rachael Meny will discuss how to protect trade secrets, guard against employee raids, recruit from competitors without getting sued, and deal with the important issues that arise when employees leave to compete with their former employers. Read more
Ms. Meny and Ms. Sessions' panel will focus on women in tech law, and being a female litigator. Read more
The awards recognize California litigation practices that delivered exceptional results on their clients' most critical and challenging matters. Read more
Rachael Meny, Jamie Slaughter and their team removed a major threat to Lyft's business model when they settled a proposed class action lawsuit without classifying drivers as employees. Read more
A California federal court crushed a proposed labor class action against smartphone-based grocery delivery service Instacart by ordering workers to individually arbitrate their claims. Read more
Ms. Meny handles ground-breaking litigation for Lyft, Inc., Netflix, Google and Instacart. Read more
Keker & Van Nest's sterling work on a slew of legal issues facing undocumented immigrants and major win to halt preemptive environmental litigation by Shell Gulf Oil of Mexico Inc., secured its place among Law360's Pro Bono Firms of 2015. Read more
Less than 40 law firm litigators from throughout California were chosen. Winners were selected for handling—and often solving—the most crucial problems tech companies face. Read more
Ms. Meny's cases involve high-stakes employee non-compete agreements and trade secret theft issues. Read more
Lyft has hired Keker & Van Nest Partners Rachael Meny and Jamie Slaughter to bolster its legal team, as it battles misclassification suits. Read more
With a federal judge declaring earlier this month that a jury should decide whether Lyft has been misclassifying drivers as contractors under California state law, the company has beefed up its defense team. Read more
Rachael Meny and Jennifer Huber provide guidance on which prevention strategies and potential defenses businesses can use against privacy class actions. Read more
Justina Sessions, Steve Hirsch and Rachael Meny win a key victory for a dozen environmental groups working to protect the arctic. Read more
One name mentioned by virtually everyone the Daily Journal spoke to was Keker & Van Nest. Lawyers at some of the best firms in California said they model themselves after the litigation powerhouse. Read more
Rachael Meny and her team protected Netflix Inc. from claims made by a former executive, who believed the company blacklisted him from employment at Amazon. Read more
Keker & Van Nest filed a brief in the Jewel v. NSA case claiming that backbone surveillance violates the 4th Amendment at the time of seizure and at the time of the search for selectors. Read more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit refused to revive patent infringement claims targeting Google Inc. over its lucrative Adsense program. Read more
Rachael Meny will present "What Makes a Good Case?" at this conference, which covers the latest developments in the law of federal and California class actions as well as procedural advice from leaders in the field. Read more
A diverse group of political, religious and environmental entities claim the government's sweeping collection of telephone communications data chills their members' First Amendment right to free association. Read more
Rachael Meny and her fellow panelists will provide advice on how to protect company trade secrets, guard against employee raids, recruit from competitors without getting sued, and deal with the important issues that arise when employees leave to compete with their former employers. Read more
Suffolk Technologies alleged the Google Adsense advertising placement technology infringed one of Suffolk’s patents. Read more
Rachael Meny provides five steps companies can take to steps to minimize
the potential litigation risks associated with key employee hires. Read more
Keker & Van Nest defended a California county against claims that its land use decision regarding a Christian school violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Read more
- "Prosecuting and Defending Corporate Raiding, Customer Trade Secret & Employee Mobility Cases," Bridgeporte, 2016
- "Strategies for Minimizing Risk of Privacy Class Actions," Today's General Counsel, 2014
- "Updates on Non-Competes and Employee Issues," in-house client presentation, 2014
- "What Makes a Good Case?" Bridgeport's Class Action Litigation & Management Conference, 2013
- "When Key Employees Go to Competitors," The Recorder, 2011
- “Defending Securities Class Actions,” ALI-ABA, 1997
- “The Securities Litigation Landscape - Three Years Into The Reform Act Era,” 1999