SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - The law firm Ogletree Deakins wants an ex-Redgrave LLP lawyer punished for naming it as a defendant in her lawsuit against her former employer.
The firm filed a motion for sanctions on Oct. 19 in San Francisco federal court in Karen Hourigan's case, which seeks an order that would let her avoid arbitration in her employment dispute with Redgrave.
She filed a complaint for declaratory judgment July 26, arguing Ogletree Deakins and Redgrave were attempting to initiate arbitration even though California law prohibits it for California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims.
"Hourigan included Ogletree as a defendant for an improper purpose, as she is apparently seeking to punish Ogletree for representing her former employer and interfere with Redgrave’s fundamental right to be represented by its counsel of choice," the motion says.
"Not only is Hourigan’s lawsuit against Ogletree a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and barred by the litigation privilege, it also lacks any factual or legal foundation.
"Notably, even though Ogletree is a named defendant, Hourigan neither alleges any actionable wrongdoing by Ogletree nor seeks a declaration of her rights or obligations with regard to Ogletree."
Ogletree calls its inclusion as a defendant "grossly improper and frivolous," especially considering Hourigan's 20-year career as a lawyer. The motion seeks:
-That the complaint against Ogletree be stricken;
-That Hourigan is admonished, reprimanded or censured for her conduct;
-An order requiring Hourigan to participate in 10 hours of Continuing Legal Education on the topics of anti-SLAPP and the First Amendment; and
-A prohibition on additional claims or lawsuits against Ogletree by Hourigan without first obtaining permission by a court.
Hourigan worked at Redgrave's San Francisco office "from time to time" for approximately 10 years, she says. In 2016, the firm attempted to amend her partnership agreement from equity to non-equity, with a pay decrease, so she withdrew from her partnership.
The mutual release was executed in November 2016. She says she was constructively discharged two years later but offered employment in March 2021. The company has failed to live up to the terms of the offer, she says, leading to the current dispute.