Michelle Ybarra

We defended LinkedIn against a nationwide putative class action alleging fraud, unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims arising from allegedly invalid activity on LinkedIn’s ad platform. We won a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, where the court found that the plaintiffs had failed to plead any viable theory.

We represented Moonton, a Chinese video game developer, in a lawsuit filed by Riot Games asserting claims of copyright and trademark infringement relating to Riot’s League of Legends video game. We filed a motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that Riot should be required to pursue its claims in China because its lawsuit was intertwined with and inconsistent with a pending Chinese lawsuit filed by Riot’s parent company, Tencent. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuit.

We represented Essential Access Health, California’s primary Title X grantee, in a suit challenging the Trump administration’s draconian new family planning regulations as unconstitutional and violative of the Administrative Procedures Act. In April 2019, we won an injunction preventing the regulations from taking effect in California and protecting access to quality reproductive care for the one million Californians who depend on Title X services each year.

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 the United States’ largest self-storage operator, Public Storage, from a consumer class action lawsuit. The plaintiff alleged our client deceived customers who bought tenant insurance policies. The plaintiff claimed Public Storage sold tenant insurance to him and other storage consumers without properly disclosing that the company retains a “substantial portion” of the premiums. The suit claimed that the insurance program offered by Public Storage was “a hidden profit center for itself that kicks back unconscionable profits at the expense of consumers.” The suit, filed in Miami federal court, sought restitution for all of the insurance premiums paid to Public Storage by its customers over the past four years. Within three months of being retained, and just seven months before trial, we prevailed on a Summary Judgment Motion which dismissed the class’ RICO claim. The matter settled favorably two days before trial.

As lead counsel for McGraw Hill and its Standard and Poor’s division, we defended our client from the government’s suit which sought at least $5 billion in penalties under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act. The government accused S&P of fraud in its rating of hundreds of residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) in the years leading up to the financial crisis in 2008. McGraw Hill ultimately settled with the government, and more than 20 states that made similar claims under state laws.

We represented LinkedIn in a patent-infringement suit filed by Bascom Research. We obtained a stay of discovery pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice, then won summary judgment invalidating all asserted claims. The victory was chosen by The Daily Journal as one of the year's "Top Defense Verdicts."

We represented Intel in an antitrust suit brought by the New York Attorney General, accusing the company of using unlawful means to secure exclusive agreements for sales of its computer chips. We significantly narrowed the case through pre-trial motions that resulted in the dismissal of several of plaintiff’s claims. Shortly before trial, we settled the case for just $6.5 million.

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.

We successfully represented four residents of Sacramento County who sued a California card room for offering “Vegas style” games in violation of the California Constitution and Penal Code. On the eve of trial, the Bureau of Gambling Control instituted state-wide rule-making to address the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ complaint.