New York Law Journal: NRA Files Motion to Dismiss New York AG's Lawsuit for Dissolution

September 16, 2021 — The New York Law Journal and other media outlets reported that firm client the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has filed a Motion to Dismiss the New York Attorney General's (NYAG) Amended Complaint, filed on August 16, 2021. The Motion to Dismiss claims that the NYAG seeks to dissolve the NRA in an effort to "silence the constitutionally guaranteed political speech of its 5 million members."

“Since taking office in 2019, the Attorney General has ignored evidence that dissolution is improper and that the NRA Board of Directors acted appropriately at all times,” William Brewer, counsel to the NRA, told the Journal. “The NRA will continue to confront this partisan attack—in the interest of its members and the Second Amendment freedom for which they stand.”

The NYAG's office initially filed its dissolution lawsuit in August 2020, claiming that the NRA misused funds for the personal gain of its top executives. In its Motion to Dismiss, the NRA argues that "[e]ven if the allegations against current and former executives are taken as true (as they must be, for purposes of this Motion), the NRA and its Board would be the victims of the alleged wrongdoing—not perpetrators."

The Motion to Dismiss also notes that a "federal bankruptcy court found after a review of voluminous evidence, that the NRA has undertaken a sustained effort to improve its internal compliance procedures and is in position to continue fulfilling its mission."

“The Texas federal court expressly concluded that the NRA is well-placed to continue improving governance and internal controls and to fulfill its mission, as it has since its whistleblowers came forward,” Brewer wrote. “These findings comprehensively undermine the NYAG’s contrived narrative of an organization rife with corruption that is unable to reform itself and that must, therefore, be dissolved.”

Read More

Uber Faces Trial in Lawsuit Over Sexual Assault by Driver

August 11, 2021 – The Brewer law firm announced that its high-profile lawsuit against Uber is moving forward.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Lewis J. Liman overruled Uber’s motion to dismiss a 2020 lawsuit that alleges that Uber’s claims relating to rider-safety are materially deceptive. The case now moves forward.

Originally filed on September 28, 2020, the lawsuit was filed by a female passenger who alleges she was sexually assaulted during a 2018 late-night ride home from New York City. Plaintiff, identified as “Jane Doe,” alleges that Uber failed to take reasonable steps to vet the driver, who assaulted her when she drifted off to sleep. In a case that captured national headlines, plaintiff reported that she suffered physical and emotional trauma.

“Our client views this decision as an opportunity to shine a bright light on the company’s failure to protect its female passengers,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel for plaintiff. “There is no doubt that millions of female passengers rely upon Uber’s representations to provide a ‘safe ride.’ Our client experienced something hauntingly different:  assault at the hands of a sexual predator.”

Plaintiff asserts that Uber makes material misrepresentations to customers regarding the safety of its services, especially for female riders.  In a 42-page opinion, dated July 28, 2021, the judge writes that Uber advertises that it provides the “safest rides on the road.” The judge observes that it is reasonable for a consumer to expect that “safety” includes non-traffic-related driver behavior such as sexual assault.

“If Uber had wanted to limit its claim to the make and model, features, or maintenance of the cars, they could have said ‘connecting you to the safest cars on the road,’” writes Judge Liman. He further writes, “Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Uber’s statements about the safety of its rides were misrepresentations that concealed safety risks. Asserting that a product in its entirety (or majority) has a quality, when in fact only a portion of that product has that quality, is materially deceptive.”

The court observes that Uber had data on the “safe/unsafe composition of its driver pool” at the time of plaintiff’s assault due to the company’s sexual assault data, yet “There is no indication from the pleadings that Uber has shared that data with customers or created a feature to flag drivers that have been reported.” As alleged in plaintiff’s lawsuit, in December 2019, Uber reported nearly 6,000 reports of sexual assaults during its rides in the United States in 2017 and 2018. Approximately 89 percent of the victims were women or female-identifying individuals.

The judge writes, “…Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Uber’s misrepresentations concealed a foreseeable risk covering sexual assault of a rider by a driver, which then materialized. Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged that her reliance on Uber’s misrepresentations caused the loss she suffered – her assault.” Therefore, he concludes that Plaintiff stated a viable claim for negligent misrepresentation.

The decision concludes, “The Court will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to add allegations that support Uber owed a duty to Plaintiff and its passengers as a common carrier. Plaintiff will also be permitted to amend the complaint with additional facts regarding Uber’s knowledge of Hussain’s [the driver] propensity for sexual assault.”

Plaintiff’s deadline to file an amended complaint is August 27, 2021.

El Paso Times Reports on Lawsuit Against Chrysler Brought by Texas Dealership Owner

August 9, 2021 — The El Paso Times today published a front-page article reporting that Brewer client Richard C. Poe II has sued Chrysler as he fights for control of his Texas dealerships.

The article reports that, in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Michigan, Poe claims that Chrysler conspired with three of his father’s business associates and their appointed dealership manager to prevent Poe from taking control of the dealerships.

William Brewer, counsel to Poe, told the Times, “Chrysler knew Richard was the heir apparent. When Dick Poe passed away, the one with legitimate control was Richard, but Chrysler began refusing to talk to Richard and awarded the dealership (control) to the interlopers."

The Times reports that the lawsuit lists the dealerships “derivatively” as plaintiffs along with Poe.

“Because he has an ownership interest in the dealerships," Poe has the legal right to file the lawsuit on behalf of the dealerships so they can receive restitution from Chrysler, Brewer said in a statement. “Naturally, those in control are critical of his efforts to bring this action" because the lawsuit includes allegations against them, he added.

Read more.

Brewer News Release - Chrysler Faces Conspiracy and Breach of Contract Claims by Texas Dealership Owner

July 19, 2021 – Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors announced that its client Richard C. Poe II, a fourth generation retail automobile dealer from Texas, filed a federal lawsuit in Michigan against FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC (“Chrysler”), accusing the automotive company of joining a conspiracy to damage Poe and unlawfully profiting from doing so.

Poe is from El Paso, Texas, and owns an interest in the oldest Chrysler dealership in Texas through Poe Management, Inc. (“PMI”). Filed on July 19, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the lawsuit alleges “a betrayal of that historic business relationship between the Poe family and Chrysler” in which Chrysler joined a conspiracy seeking to prevent Poe from controlling the two Chrysler automotive dealerships. Poe’s great grandfather A.B. Poe opened what is now the oldest Chrysler dealership in Texas in 1928.

PMI is the general partner of the two Limited Partnership plaintiffs that own the Poe family dealerships in El Paso: Dick Poe Motors, L.P., a Texas limited partnership that owns the Dick Poe Chrysler/Jeep dealership, and Dick Poe Dodge, L.P., a Texas limited partnership that owns the Dick Poe Dodge/Ram dealership.

The lawsuit alleges that Chrysler joined the conspiracy against Poe by disregarding his legal rights, acting to limit his access to information, allowing a change in management without following proper procedures, and benefitting from the underlying conspiracy. The suit seeks millions in damages.

“As the rightful owner of these longtime Chrysler automotive dealerships, Richard Poe II believes Chrysler’s betrayal cost him millions in damages,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to Poe. “Our client believes Chrysler helped effect an improper change of control of the dealerships, so it could benefit from the sale of lucrative ‘reinsurance’ products that were previously underwritten by companies owned by Poe.”

The lawsuit alleges that Anthony E. Bock, a certified public accountant who worked for Poe’s father Dick Poe, abused his fiduciary relationship and joined a conspiracy with the intent to remove Poe from control over the dealerships in order to enrich the corporation. The lawsuit alleges that the others involved in the conspiracy were Karen G. Castro, the former office manager for Dick Poe, Paul O. Sergent, a lawyer who represented the Poes for several years; and Gery A. Reckelbus, a dealership manager.

According to the complaint, 10 days before his death in May 2015, Dick Poe caused an illegal share issuance from PMI that resulted in Richard Poe II becoming a minority shareholder. The lawsuit alleges that within days of Dick Poe’s death, Bock and Castro were named co-independent executors of Dick Poe’s estate in a will that was prepared by Sergent. Bock and Castro subsequently appointed themselves directors of PMI. They then moved to remove Richard Poe II from control over PMI and “unlawfully obtained” Chrysler’s approval of Reckelbus as the “dealer principal” for the dealerships in question.

The lawsuit asserts that Chrysler worked with the conspirators and aided them with their tortious acts by refusing to respond to correspondence from Richard Poe II or his attorneys, refusing to meet with Richard Poe II, and refusing to send notices to Richard Poe II as required by law and by contractual agreements, among other actions.

“Chrysler repeatedly failed and refused to communicate with Richard; failed, on multiple occasions, to respond to voice mails and written communications from Richard and his attorneys; and repeatedly obfuscated its internal decision process and reasons (if any) for denying Richard his rightful place as the successor of the historic, nearly 100-year-old family business,” the complaint alleges.

The lawsuit alleges seven causes of action: a breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, tortious interference with dealership sales and service agreements, tortious interference with prospective business relationships, fraudulent concealment and fraud by non-disclosure, conversion, and civil conspiracy. 

The lawsuit states, “Chrysler chose not to communicate with Richard and answer his questions. Instead, Chrysler cut Richard out of the loop and began engaging in other tortious conduct with the Relevant Non-Party conspirators.” The lawsuit alleges that with the change of control effected by Chrysler, the conspirators stopped purchasing vehicle protection products that were underwritten by Richard Poe II. Instead, defendants funneled those sales to Chrysler.

“Our client aims to hold Chrysler accountable for its alleged role in this scheme, and to also shine a bright light on the company’s business dealings with dealership owners across the country,” Brewer says. 

Bloomberg Law Reports on Discrimination Lawsuit Against Polsinelli Law Firm

March 31, 2021 — Bloomberg Law reports on a lawsuit filed by Brewer client Trey Monsour against Polsinelli PC law firm in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleging discrimination. 

Bloomberg reports, "Polsinelli PC's push to increase its level of diversity and inclusion was just an empty attempt to shed its reputation as a Midwestern, 'good old boys' law firm, for which its 800-plus workforce pay 'the real-world consequences,' a gay former partner charges in a federal lawsuit in Texas." 

Bloomberg reports that Monsour, a former Polsinelli bankruptcy partner who is gay, alleged in the lawsuit that he was treated differently from than other similarly situated non-LGBTQ Polsinelli employees. According to the suit, he was denied the assistance of junior attorneys and administrative support that almost all other newly hired partners received. 

Bloomberg reports that the lawsuit charges that Polsinelli's commitment to diversity was "nothing more than a marketing ploy." The lawsuit alleges that he was discriminated against based on his sexual orientation and age. 

Read more.

Brewer News Release - Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against Polsinelli Law Firm

March 31, 2021 – Brewer client Trey A. Monsour, a prominent bankruptcy attorney, filed a lawsuit against the law firm Polsinelli PC alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation.  

Mr. Monsour worked as a partner in the Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Houston office. 

Filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on March 30, 2021, the lawsuit alleges discriminatory treatment of Mr. Monsour, an openly gay man, after he became an equity partner in June 2017 in its then newly founded Houston office.  

According to the complaint, Mr. Monsour, was quickly subjected to harassment, denied adequate support and resources, and terminated for his sexual orientation.  

The lawsuit claims Polsinelli violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and committed Fraudulent Inducement, among other claims.  

“Mr. Monsour alleges he was discriminated against at Polsinelli law firm because he is gay,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to Mr. Monsour. “By any measure, Mr. Monsour is a successful and established attorney. He brings this lawsuit to expose what he believes is a troubling pattern of discrimination based on sexual orientation at Polsinelli – and to champion a call for diversity, tolerance and inclusion in the legal industry.”     

According to the complaint, “From the outset, Polsinelli treated Mr. Monsour differently from other similarly situated non-LGBTQ employees. Whereas almost all newly hired partners were invariably provided with associate and administrative support, the firm denied Mr. Monsour these basic resources, despite his repeated appeals to management for help.”   

The complaint says, “Polsinelli’s adverse employment actions were made on the basis of Mr. Monsour’s protected age and sexual orientation, a fact starkly punctuated by derogatory comments by firm leaders regarding gay employees that Mr. Monsour overheard firsthand, as well as observations and stories of contemporaneous experiences relayed by Mr. Monsour’s colleagues.”   

The complaint alleges that Polsinelli’s self-proclaimed commitment to diversity and inclusion on its website and in marketing materials is a ruse. In fact, diversity numbers remain low at the firm. Mr. Monsour claims that he was induced to join the 800-lawyer firm, based on its public representations and “commitment” to diversity and inclusion.  

Joining William A. Brewer III in representing Mr. Monsour is William A. Brewer IV. 

Law360 Reports on LGBT Bias Suit Brought By Bankruptcy Attorney

March 31, 2021 — Law360 reports that Brewer client Trey A. Monsour, who is a prominent bankruptcy attorney, has filed a lawsuit in Texas federal court against the law firm Polsinelli PC, accusing the firm of discriminating against him based on his sexual orientation. 

Monsour, a former partner at the firm who is gay, alleges that the firm began discriminating against him after he was hired as a partner in the firm's Houston office in 2017. 

William A. Brewer III, who represents Monsour in the suit, said in a statement that his client is suing "to expose what he believes is a troubling pattern of discrimination based on sexual orientation at Polsinelli — and to champion a call for diversity, tolerance and inclusion in the legal industry." 

Law360 reports that according to the lawsuit filing, "Whereas almost all newly hired partners were invariable provided with associate and administrative support, the firm denied Mr. Monsour these basic resources, despite his repeated appeals to management for help.” The suit alleges that firm leaders also made "derogatory comments" regarding gay employees and that Monsour felt "isolated and without recourse." 

Read more.

New York Law Journal: Judge's Ruling Allows NRA's First Amendment Claims to Proceed

March 15, 2021 — The New York Law Journal reports that a ruling by U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy of the Northern District of New York allows the NRA's First Amendment claims against New York state officials to move forward with discovery.

The lawsuit argues that New York state officials violated the NRA's First Amendment rights to express its political views.

“This important decision reaffirms that all public officials, even Gov. Cuomo and Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, are accountable under the First Amendment,” said William Brewer, counsel to the NRA. “It will allow the NRA to pursue discovery and bring important evidence to light—to expose the communications and coordinated efforts of New York officials and others to harm the NRA and impinge its Constitutional freedoms. The message is clear: the NRA will stand up to those who unlawfully interfere with its Second Amendment advocacy.”

The article reports that Judge McAvoy denied qualified immunity to former New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) superintendent Maria Vullo, noting that "a question of material fact exists" as to whether Vullo "explicitly threatened" an insurer with DFS enforcement unless it broke ties with the NRA.

Read more.