Jamie Slaughter has extensive experience in complex civil and white collar criminal matters. He has successfully represented companies and individuals in breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, trade secret, copyright, trademark and right of publicity cases. He has also represented individuals in matters with the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice, and numerous national law firms in professional negligence cases.
Mr. Slaughter has tried, arbitrated and mediated cases in state and federal courts in California, New York, Delaware and around the country. He has spent substantial time protecting the interests of the leading designer and publisher of video games against copyright, trademark and right of publicity challenges, including defeating multiple preliminary injunction motions that sought to prevent his client from releasing popular and highly anticipated games.
Cases of Note
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 preliminarily approved the settlement in June 2016. The Fairness Hearing is scheduled for December.
United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports, et al.: We represent Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong in a False Claims Act case brought by a former teammate and joined in by the United States. Our prior representation of Armstrong resulted in the closing of a federal criminal investigation without charges being filed.
Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc. et al: We secured a favorable settlement for Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) in this groundbreaking antitrust and right of publicity class action. Current and former student-athletes claimed EA improperly used the athletes’ likenesses and biographical information in its NCAA Football and NCAA Basketball video games.
Financial Institution v. Law Firm: We defended a large Nebraska law firm from a multi-million dollar legal malpractice case in connection with a real estate transaction. The action stemmed from a separate law firm’s failure to adequately protect a financial institution’s priority in a debt transaction where that client was the lender. As a result of the law firm’s failure to ensure the proper paperwork was filed, the client lost its priority to subsequent lienholders when the borrower went bankrupt. Six months after the original law firm’s malpractice occurred, our client was hired and then sued for indemnification by the financial institution as a third party. On the eve of trial, the plaintiff dismissed our client from the litigation.
Plaintiff v. Law Firm: We defended an AmLaw 100 firm from multiple lawsuits and arbitrations concerning a luxury real estate deal. After individuals purchased condos in a high-end San Francisco tower, they complained of an allegedly unknown Mello-Roos tax. The building owners sought damages from the AmLaw 100 firm which had advised on the disclosures. We were able to settle all of the matters for our client.
Plaintiff v. Law Firm: We represented a national law firm in a professional negligence case. The plaintiffs contended that our client made evidentiary errors in a patent trial which allowed the other party to prove more than $10 million in damages. Following the filing of a summary judgment motion, we settled on terms favorable to our client.
Dillinger LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc.: We won summary judgment for Electronic Arts Inc in this right-of-publicity and trademark case. The heirs of John Dillinger alleged that EA improperly used the Dillinger name in a series of video games. Plaintiff sought damages and an injunction to prevent EA from selling the games. The court's orders not only affirmed EA's fundamental First Amendment right to design and publish its games, but also made clear that Indiana's right of publicity statute could not be applied retroactively to individuals who died before it was enacted. Law360 described the rulings as a "total victory" for EA.
AIME v. The Regents of the University of California: We convinced a federal judge to dismiss a breach of contract suit which alleged the University of California, Los Angeles violated the copyrights of educational-video makers when it implemented a system for streaming videos online to students and faculty. The suit, the first of its kind in the nation, asserted federal causes of action for copyright infringement and unlawful circumvention under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as well as state law claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, interference with contract, and interference with prospective business advantage. In addition to vindicating UCLA, this case may impact the rights of colleges and universities to bring educational videos into the virtual classroom space.
Televisa v. Univision Communications: We represented Univision, the country's leading Spanish language television network, in a breach of contract jury trial. Televisa, a Mexican multimedia conglomerate which supplied Univision with its most popular Spanish language programs, attempted to terminate a long-term exclusive licensing agreement and sought more than $100 million in damages. The case was settled during trial on favorable terms. We also represented Univision in a bench trial which sought declaratory judgment to prevent Televisa from broadcasting over the Internet the same highly popular programs that it exclusively licensed to Univision. We won a complete victory at trial.
Activision v. Double Fine Productions: We intervened on behalf of Electronic Arts (EA), in a suit between Activision and Double Fine in which Activision sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Double Fine from delivering the much-hyped video game Brutal Legend to EA, thereby preventing EA from releasing the game. After winning a tentative ruling denying the preliminary injunction, we settled the case on favorable terms. EA released the game as scheduled.
United States v. Former Chief Executive Officer: We represented the former CEO of a public company in a criminal investigation, a Securities and Exchange Commission suit, a derivative shareholder suit, a breach of contract suit by our client against his former company, and that company's counterclaim for hundreds of millions. All of these matters were related to the company's historical stock option granting practices. We resolved all of the matters against our client with net payments of more than $10 million to our client.
Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Justice and Shareholders v. Former Chief Executive Officer: We represented the former CEO of an antivirus software company in investigations by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, and an arbitration arising out of an investigation into the company’s stock option granting process. The government took no action against our client, who also reached a favorable confidential settlement with his former company.
Awards and Honors
- Listed in The Best Lawyers in America, Legal Malpractice, 2012 - present
- Recommended Attorney, Litigation - Leading Trial Lawyers, The Legal 500 U.S., 2011
- Board of Directors, Boys & Girls Clubs of San Francisco
- Board of Directors, Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation
- Board of Directors, Reading Partners
- Former Member, San Francisco Police Commission