Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 97 Filed 10/10/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 2898
`
`TOMPKINS, MCGUIRE, WACHENFELD & BARRY, LLP
`William H. Trousdale
`3 Becker Farm Road, Suite 402
`Roseland, New Jersey 07068
`Tel: (908) 622-3000
`Email: wtrousdale@tompkinsmcguire.com
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`Charles H. Sanders (pro hac vice)
`200 Clarendon St.
`Boston, MA 02116
`Tel: (617) 948-6000
`Email: charles.sanders@lw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Latham & Watkins LLP, Roger Chin,
`and Douglas Lumish
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MONIB ZIRVI, M.D., Ph. D.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`ILLUMINA, INC., THERMO FISHER
`SCIENTIFIC, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS
`HAUER & FELD LLP, LATHAM &
`WATKINS, RIP FINST, SEAN BOYLE,
`MATTHEW A. PEARSON, ANGELA
`VERRECCHIO, ROGER CHIN, and
`DOUGLAS LUMISH,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: 23-cv-01997 (MCA) (JSA)
`
`Hon. Madeline Cox Arleo
`
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`Motion Date: October 16, 2023
`
`
`
`
`LATHAM DEFENDANTS’
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 97 Filed 10/10/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 2899
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`D’Ambly v. Exoo,
`No. 20-12880, 2021 WL 5084364 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2021) .........................................................2
`
`Hass v. Sacramento Cnty. Dep't of Support Servs.,
`No. 2:13-cv-01746, 2013 WL 6844754 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013) ...........................................2
`
`Rachlin v. Baumann,
`No. 21-15343, 2022 WL 4239790 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2022) ........................................................1
`
`SCE Group, Inc. v. Garson,
`No. 21-CV-19944, 2022 WL 2952985 (D.N.J. July 26, 2022)..................................................3
`
`Speeney v. Rutgers,
`673 F. App’x 149 (3d Cir. 2016) ...............................................................................................1
`
`Vance v. Scerbo,
`No. A-2019-17T4, 2019 WL 960245 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 26,
`2019) ..........................................................................................................................................3
`
`Wells Fargo Bank v. Lichter Gateway IV, LLC,
`No. 17-2036, 2017 WL 5957072 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2017) ............................................................2
`
`Zahl v. Eastland,
`465 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 2020) .........................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 97 Filed 10/10/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 2900
`
`In opposing the Latham Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff Zirvi does
`
`not contest that (1) he was told that the Latham Defendants did not represent him
`
`and had engaged his own attorney and, (2) if there was any representation (there was
`
`not), it was as a third-party beneficiary of Cornell’s engagement of Latham. As such,
`
`even if Zirvi had adequately pled that the Latham Defendants represented him,
`
`California law would apply and bar his claims. This Court should dismiss the
`
`Latham Defendants.
`
`
`
`Zirvi’s opposition confirms that he knew that the Latham Defendants never
`
`represented him. He bases his malpractice claims against the Latham Defendants on
`
`alleged advice to pursue a claim for “trade secret theft … in April of 2017.” ECF
`
`No. 92 at 31. But Zirvi already knew he did not have an attorney-client relationship
`
`with the Latham Defendants. Speeney v. Rutgers, 673 F. App’x 149, 154 (3d Cir.
`
`2016) (no attorney-client relationship where purported client “relied on their own
`
`lawyers” and called other lawyers “his attorney[s]”). On March 31, 2017, Zirvi
`
`wrote that he “reserve[d] the right to act [as] advised by [his non-Latham] attorney”
`
`after being expressly told that Latham was “engaged to represent Cornell’s
`
`interests”—not Zirvi’s interests. ECF No. 84-4 (Ex. B).1
`
`
`1 Where, as here, a document (ECF No. 92-2 at 264) is central to the issues and relied
`upon by Plaintiff, it is appropriate to consider it on a motion to dismiss. See, e.g.,
`Rachlin v. Baumann, 2022 WL 4239790, at n.3 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2022) (“central”
`document of which “Plaintiff was undoubtedly aware”); Wells Fargo Bank v. Lichter
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 97 Filed 10/10/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 2901
`
`Because Zirvi fails to identify facts sufficient to show representation by
`
`Latham Defendants, his claims must be dismissed under New Jersey or California
`
`law. D’Ambly v. Exoo, 2021 WL 5084364, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2021) (malpractice
`
`claim dismissed for failure to plead an attorney-client relationship); Hass v.
`
`Sacramento Cnty. Dep’t of Support Servs., 2013 WL 6844754, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal.
`
`Dec. 20, 2013) (same). Zirvi’s “260 pages” of emails merely show that he received
`
`emails about the patents Cornell asserted against Illumina on which Zirvi was a
`
`named inventor, but he points to nothing in any of these emails that evidence an
`
`attorney-client relationship between him and Latham. ECF No. 92 at 13.
`
`
`
`Zirvi admits that he “did not sign” Latham’s engagement agreement with
`
`Cornell and Thermo Fisher (because he never was Latham’s client). ECF No. 92 at
`
`43. Zirvi instead alleges that he was a third-party beneficiary of Cornell’s assertion
`
`of the patents naming him as a co-inventor, alleging that, as “a co-inventor,” he “had
`
`an economic and reputational interest.” ECF No. 92-4 ¶ 12; ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 9-23. But
`
`Zirvi does not contest that, if he became Latham’s client as a third-party beneficiary
`
`of Latham’s representation of Cornell (which he did not), then he would have been
`
`bound by the agreement’s choice of law clause. Zirvi does not contest that California
`
`law thus would apply and bar his claims. As a result, even if he pled facts to show
`
`
`Gateway IV, LLC, 2017 WL 5957072, at *16 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2017) (Plaintiff had
`“actual notice” of and “relied upon” documents).
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 97 Filed 10/10/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 2902
`
`an attorney-client relationship (he did not), his claims still fail as matter of law.
`
`Zirvi’s response to the Latham Defendants’ venue and jurisdiction arguments
`
`is conclusory. ECF No. 92 at 43. His complaint does not allege a single instance of
`
`the Latham Defendants visiting or performing work in New Jersey.2 Zirvi’s cases
`
`are inapt because they involved alleged representation in a New Jersey court. Vance
`
`v. Scerbo, 2019 WL 960245, at *2-3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 26, 2019) (out-
`
`of-state attorney filed a lawsuit in NJ); Zahl v. Eastland, 465 N.J. Super. 79 (App.
`
`Div. 2020) (same). By contrast, here Zirvi alleges Latham represented him in the
`
`Delaware Litigation and, at most, that he exchanged emails with the Latham
`
`Defendants while living in New Jersey, which is insufficient. SCE Group, Inc. v.
`
`Garson, which Zirvi cites (ECF No. 92 at 35), held that there was no jurisdiction for
`
`a legal malpractice claim based on normal incidents of legal representation with a
`
`New Jersey plaintiff. 2022 WL 2952985 at *6 (D.N.J. July 26, 2022).
`
`Accordingly, the Court should dismiss the Latham Defendants for the reasons
`
`set forth in the Joint Motion to Dismiss and Latham Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
`
`
`
`
`2 Zirvi notes a single instance of work he alleges supports jurisdiction–“submitting
`the declaration of Dr. Zirvi in IPR2016-00557” (ECF No. 92 at 36)–but the Latham
`Defendants were not counsel in that Patent Office action in Virginia. See Ex. C.
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 97 Filed 10/10/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 2903
`
`Dated: October 10, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`TOMPKINS, MCGUIRE,
`WACHENFELD & BARRY, LLP
`
`By: /s/ William H. Trousdale
`William H. Trousdale
`Michael S. Miller
`Jared P. DuVoisin
`TOMPKINS, MCGUIRE,
`WACHENFELD & BARRY LLP
`3 Becker Farm Road, Suite 402
`Roseland, NJ 07068
`Tel: (908) 622-3000
`Email:
`wtrousdale@tompkinsmcguire.com
`mmiller@tompkinsmcguire.com
`jduvoisin@tompkinsmcguire.com
`
`Charles H. Sanders
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`Tel: (617) 948-6000
`Email: charles.sanders@lw.com
`
`Michelle L. Ernst
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`1271 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020
`Tel: (212) 906-1200
`Email: michelle.ernst@lw.com
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Latham & Watkins LLP, Roger Chin,
`and Douglas Lumish
`
`4
`
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket