Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04884/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04884-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP,

Appellant,

v.

HOWREY LLP,

Appellee.

Case Nos. 14-cv-04882-JD

14-cv-04883-JD

14-cv-04884-JD

14-cv-04885-JD

14-cv-04886-JD

14-cv-04887-JD

14-cv-04888-JD

14-cv-04889-JD

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW 

PITTMAN LLP,

Appellant,

v.

HOWREY LLP,

Appellee.

ORDER DISMISSING CASES

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP,

Appellant,

v.

HOWREY LLP,

Appellee.

Case 3:14-cv-04884-JD Document 20 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

PERKINS COIE LLP,

Appellant,

v.

HOWREY LLP,

Appellee.

NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP,

Appellant,

v.

HOWREY LLP,

Appellee.

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & 

FRIEDMAN LLP,

Appellant,

v.

HOWREY LLP,

Appellee.

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & 

HAMPTON LLP,

Appellant,

v.

HOWREY LLP,

Appellee.

JONES DAY,

Appellant,

v.

HOWREY LLP,

Appellee.

Case 3:14-cv-04884-JD Document 20 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 4
1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In these consolidated cases, eight law firms that provided legal services to former clients of 

debtor Howrey LLP appealed the bankruptcy court’s denial of their motions to dismiss. The 

debtor’s trustee filed complaints in the bankruptcy court seeking to recover profits from the eight 

firms after they hired former Howrey partners and were engaged by former Howrey clients. On 

appeal, the Court applied the law of the District of Columbia, where Howrey operated as a limited 

liability partnership before its dissolution, to conclude that the legal services provided by the new 

firms were new matters and not property of the Howrey partnership, and that the partnership could 

not recover profits associated with post-dissolution partners earned by the new firms. Similarly, 

profits associated with pre-dissolution partners were not recoverable either. Consequently, the 

Court reversed the bankruptcy court, and dismissed the cases with prejudice. See generally Dkt. 

No. 41 in Case No. 14-cv-04889-JD. 

The Court noted that the highest court in the District, the District of Columbia Court of 

Appeals, had not directly determined whether a bankrupt partnership had a property interest in 

substantively new representations of its former clients by competing firms. Id. at 1. When the 

debtor’s trustee appealed the order dismissing the cases, the Ninth Circuit certified that question, 

and related issues, to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Diamond v. Hogan Lovells US 

LLP (Howrey I), 883 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2018). The District of Columbia court accepted the 

certified questions, and answered them in a detailed opinion. Diamond v. Hogan Lovells US LLP 

(Howrey II), 224 A.3d 1007 (D.C. 2020). It reached the same conclusion as this Court for similar 

reasons. 

The Ninth Circuit adopted the District of Columbia opinion in toto and remanded the 

matter to this Court for further consistent proceedings. Diamond Tr. of Estate of Howrey LLP v. 

Hogan Lovells US LLP (Howrey III), 950 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2020) (mem.). It is not 

entirely clear what those proceedings might be, given that the Court’s order of dismissal had in 

effect been affirmed by the District of Columbia court. In addition, this matter has been closed in 

this Court for some time. No party has expressed an interest in further proceedings since the 

circuit opinion was published and its mandate was issued.

Case 3:14-cv-04884-JD Document 20 Filed 06/15/20 Page 3 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In any event, the Court concludes this matter by adopting the District of Columbia opinion. 

For the reasons stated in that opinion, the bankruptcy court’s order denying dismissal is reversed, 

and an amended judgment will be entered in favor of appellants and against appellees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2020

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04884-JD Document 20 Filed 06/15/20 Page 4 of 4