Patterson

Patterson v. O'NEAL

Good Law
673 F. Supp. 2d 974·2009 WL 4282795·30 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 24·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110333
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 25, 200909-3031 SC, 09-5322 SCCalifornia5,999 words

Opinion

Opinion

Conti, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs are former employees of Thelen LLP (“Thelen”), a nationwide law firm that closed its business in 2008. Plaintiffs have brought suit against Thelen, a number of its former partners, and, in this case, five separate law firms that have allegedly purchased portions of Thelen’s former practice. These law firms are Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (“Morgan Lewis”), Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”); Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (“Orrick”), DLA Piper LLP (“DLA Piper”), and Howrey LLP (“Howrey”) (collectively, the “Law Firm Defendants”). Plaintiffs’ Complaint raises only one cause of action against the Law Firm Defendants, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN” or “WARN Act”). Am. Compl. (“FAC”), Docket No. 6, ¶¶ 74-84. The Law Firm Defendants have filed five separate Motions to Dismiss with respect to this cause of action. Docket Nos. 8 (“Morgan Lewis MTD”), 14 (“DLA Piper MTD”), 18 (“Howrey MTD”), 24 (“Nixon Peabody MTD”), 36 (“Orrick MTD”). Plaintiffs have submitted a single, consolidated Opposition. Docket No. 50. The Law Firm…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.