R. James Slaughter

We represented Black Knight in a lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission attempting to block Intercontinental Exchange’s acquisition of Black Knight as allegedly anticompetitive. Intercontinental Exchange (the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange) entered into an agreement to acquire Black Knight, which provides software, data and analytics to the real estate and housing finance markets, for $13.1 billion. Following certain divestiture agreements, we convinced the FTC to drop its suit and allow the merger to proceed.

We represented former Oakland Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick in a wrongful termination and retaliation lawsuit following her termination by the City of Oakland. For nearly three years, Chief Kirkpatrick raised a series of alarms about misconduct by the Oakland Police Commission. Following a two-week trial, a San Francisco federal jury found that Chief Kirkpatrick was wrongfully terminated for blowing the whistle on the Police Commission’s misconduct.

Representing Electronic Arts, we secured the dismissal of a lawsuit by The Brandr Group, which claimed EA was circumventing its agreements with dozens of Division I schools by offering group name, image, and likeness licensing deals directly to football players. After we defeated a TRO petition, The Brandr Group withdrew its lawsuit, paving the way toward a summer 2024 release of a new college football video game for the first time since 2013.

We defended Molekule, a leading air purifier company, in a consumer class action filed in the Eastern District of New York alleging that Molekule’s advertising is false and misleading, among other claims. We successfully moved to compel individual arbitration and stayed the case before plaintiffs could seek any discovery.

We represented Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong in settling a False Claims Act case brought by a former teammate and joined in by the United States. The Postal Service and Floyd Landis had sought $100 million in damages from Armstrong, but in light of several significant court rulings rejecting and limiting the plaintiffs’ damages theories, the case settled for $5 million. Our prior representation of Armstrong resulted in the closing of a federal criminal investigation without charges being filed.

Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) was sued by a purported class of gamers who claimed that EA’s FIFA, Madden and NHL games fraudulently include artificial intelligence technologies that dynamically adjust game play difficulty such that outcomes of games change. Through a creative and aggressive litigation strategy, we secured dismissal of the suit before our response brief was due.

We successfully defended Electronic Arts in a recent class action targeting its sports games, FIFA and Madden NFL, including a “loot box” challenge claiming that the Ultimate Teams feature constitutes illegal gambling.

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.

We are defending Lyft against a lawsuit filed by California's attorney general and a group of city attorneys which claims that Lyft misclassified drivers as independent contractors, under California's Assembly Bill 5. Before the California Court of Appeal, we secured a stay of an injunction the Court entered against Lyft. During the pendency of the appeal, California’s Proposition 22 passed, confirming contractor status for Lyft drivers.

We represented online file-sharing company investors against allegations of copyright infringement, and asserted counterclaims of antitrust violations. After we used crime fraud arguments to pierce the plaintiff's attorney-client privilege, the case settled on favorable terms.

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.

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.

We represented Black Knight in a lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission attempting to block Intercontinental Exchange’s acquisition of Black Knight as allegedly anticompetitive. Intercontinental Exchange (the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange) entered into an agreement to acquire Black Knight, which provides software, data and analytics to the real estate and housing finance markets, for $13.1 billion. Following certain divestiture agreements, we convinced the FTC to drop its suit and allow the merger to proceed.

We defended Molekule, a leading air purifier company, in a consumer class action filed in the Eastern District of New York alleging that Molekule’s advertising is false and misleading, among other claims. We successfully moved to compel individual arbitration and stayed the case before plaintiffs could seek any discovery.

We represented Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong in settling a False Claims Act case brought by a former teammate and joined in by the United States. The Postal Service and Floyd Landis had sought $100 million in damages from Armstrong, but in light of several significant court rulings rejecting and limiting the plaintiffs’ damages theories, the case settled for $5 million. Our prior representation of Armstrong resulted in the closing of a federal criminal investigation without charges being filed.

To seize control of the Koret Foundation, Susan Koret, chair and wife of foundation founder Joseph Koret, filed suit against the Koret Foundation and six of the seven other board members, seeking their removal. On behalf of the foundation and its directors, we sought Ms. Koret’s removal as a director by way of a cross-complaint. A San Francisco Superior Court trial resulted in a tentative ruling rejecting Ms. Koret’s claims and granting the Foundation’s request that Ms. Koret be removed, and the parties settled the dispute on terms favorable to the Foundation.

We represented the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority (OACCA) in arbitration brought by the Golden State Warriors. The team challenged the OACCA’s authority to impose a facility fee on tickets sold to Warriors’ games. We won complete victory after a week-long arbitration.

We convinced a federal judge to dismiss a breach of contract suit that 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.

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.

We represented a prominent research scientist and founder of a pharmaceutical drug company in a licensing dispute over who owns the rights to a promising molecule for treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Although the plaintiff sought nearly $1 billion in damages, we were able to extricate our client for a tiny settlement and help him avoid any further litigation.

We represented two former company executives in a securities fraud action arising out of a tender offer. We obtained a favorable settlement before depositions began.

We represented online file-sharing company investors against allegations of copyright infringement, and asserted counterclaims of antitrust violations. After we used crime fraud arguments to pierce the plaintiff's attorney-client privilege, the case settled on favorable terms.

Representing Electronic Arts, we secured the dismissal of a lawsuit by The Brandr Group, which claimed EA was circumventing its agreements with dozens of Division I schools by offering group name, image, and likeness licensing deals directly to football players. After we defeated a TRO petition, The Brandr Group withdrew its lawsuit, paving the way toward a summer 2024 release of a new college football video game for the first time since 2013.

Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) was sued by a purported class of gamers who claimed that EA’s FIFA, Madden and NHL games fraudulently include artificial intelligence technologies that dynamically adjust game play difficulty such that outcomes of games change. Through a creative and aggressive litigation strategy, we secured dismissal of the suit before our response brief was due.

We successfully defended Electronic Arts in a recent class action targeting its sports games, FIFA and Madden NFL, including a “loot box” challenge claiming that the Ultimate Teams feature constitutes illegal gambling.

We won summary judgment for Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) 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.

We defended Electronic Arts (EA) in a copyright case. The plaintiff alleged EA improperly used a copyrighted song in a video game, sought damages and an injunction. We won a motion to dismiss.

We intervened on behalf of Electronic Arts Inc. (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.

Robin Antonick, programmer of the John Madden Football video game for the Apple II that was released in 1988, alleged that EA owed him royalties on sales of all Madden Football video games over the last twenty-two years. Antonick claimed that all Madden games since 1990 are derivative works of the game he programmed, and he was therefore owed royalties under a 1986 contract with EA. On behalf of EA, we contended that none of Antonick’s source code, which was written for a more primitive platform and was outdated by the time it was released, was ever used in any subsequent Madden game. Although the jury found in favor of Antonik, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer later entered judgment for EA, reversing the award and strongly discouraging similar suits based on additional versions of the game. Judge Breyer's ruling was affirmed on appeal.

We defended Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) against claims that avatars in its hugely successful Madden NFL franchise used the likenesses of retired NFL players. After litigating an important First Amendment issue in the district court and before the Ninth Circuit, we defeated two successive motions to certify a class, both because plaintiffs’ case presented intractable choice-of-law problems and because, as the court recognized, the right of publicity is inherently an individual right. We prevailed at summary judgment over plaintiffs’ statutory claims. The Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that “any of the avatars in the Madden games could be ‘readily identified’ as corresponding to any specific plaintiff based on the appearance of the avatars alone.” Not long after, the parties settled.

In a breach of contract and theft of trade secrets case, the plaintiff sought preliminary injunction to prevent our client, Electronic Arts Inc. (EA), from releasing the popular Madden football game just before the holiday shopping season. After we defeated the preliminary injunction motion, the case was voluntarily dismissed, with no payment by our client.

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.

We are defending Lyft against a lawsuit filed by California's attorney general and a group of city attorneys which claims that Lyft misclassified drivers as independent contractors, under California's Assembly Bill 5. Before the California Court of Appeal, we secured a stay of an injunction the Court entered against Lyft. During the pendency of the appeal, California’s Proposition 22 passed, confirming contractor status for Lyft drivers.

We won two motions to compel arbitration and defeated two related emergency preliminary injunction motions that were brought by Lyft drivers seeking to be classified as employees rather than contractors during the COVID19 crisis. The district court struck the class allegations, granted our arbitration requests, and then remanded plaintiffs’ injunction request to the San Francisco Superior Court to determine if plaintiffs sought public or private injunctive relief. The superior court denied plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, ruling that granting the injunction would result in only modest benefits to a small subset of Lyft drivers, while potentially risking the eligibility of all Lyft drivers to receive substantially greater relief under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

We defended technology company Lyft against a putative class action that addressed an issue critical to the sharing economy: whether Lyft drivers have been misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees. The parties entered into a proposed settlement that did not require the re-classification of Lyft drivers as employees.

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.

We defended an Am Law 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 law firm, which had advised on the disclosures. We were able to settle all of the matters for our client.

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.

We defended a global law firm in connection with a claim asserted by its former clients (a Taiwan automotive corporation and its U.S. subsidiary) concerning an antitrust matter. The automotive companies initially received amnesty under ACPERA. However, on the plaintiff’s subsequent motion, the judge found that the automotive companies had not sufficiently cooperated, exposing them to treble damages of up to $270 million. The automotive companies blamed the global law firm for development. We were able to settle the matter without a claim ever being filed.