Kevin O'Mara

A New York City court ruled that landlords don’t have a process under the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to serve certain commercial tenants with the 14-day rent demands needed to begin repossessing a property. New York City Civil Court Judge Allison Greenfield made her finding while reviewing the rent demand that UNG 3 Realty LLC and 36 East 20th Street Realty Co. LLC issued to Passerine LLC, a restaurant in Tribeca opened by a Michelin-starred chef. Greenfield found that the landlords had incorrectly used the “more relaxed service methods” outlined in Section 735 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, or RPAPL, to notify Passerine of the summary possession proceeding. That law allows for service on a “natural person,” “corporation, joint-stock or other unincorporated association”—but not for service on LLCs, Greenfield said. “This is not a surprising discovery, as RPAPL 735 was enacted in 1962 and last amended in 1980, and LLCs were not created by the New York State Legislature until 1994,” she said in a decision filed on Nov. 24. The failure to update the law to include LLCs is likely a legislative oversight, but “this Court is without power to remedy the oversights of the legislature… absent appellate authority, this Court can only call upon the legislature to review the issue and, if it deems appropriate, make a suitable amendment," Greenfield said. RPAPL governs summary proceedings for possession, with Section 735 stating that service can be made to the respondent or to someone who resides at or is employed by the subject property. After Passerine's landlords attempted to open a summary proceeding in April, the restaurant's attorney, Kevin Sean O’Donoghue, alleged several issues with the service, including with the method chosen. In court documents, O'Donoghue argued that “in New York, process cannot just be served on just any employee of a limited liability company… or just left at the door.” In her decision, Greenfield said she could only find one other decision that dealt with the issue of serving an LLC under RPAPL 735, a 2007 ruling from the Richmond County Civil Court that LLCs may be served under RPAPL 735. But Greenfield went the opposite way and sided with O’Donoghue, observing that landlords could instead serve an LLC through a member or manager, as provided in CPLR § 311-a, or through the Secretary of State, as provided in Article III of the Limited Liability Company Law. Those alternative measures, however, didn’t seem practical to Daniel Phillips, trial counsel at Belkin, Burden, Goldman. He pointed out that there were other deadlines for RPAPL proceedings that a landlord would have difficulties meeting if attempting service through the Department of State. And more significantly, Phillips said that neither of the alternative measures—service through the Department of State or through a member or manager—is the best way to notify a tenant of a proceeding. If you’re evicting someone occupying a space, the best way to notify them is to send the papers to the premises, Phillips said. “Suppose you have a deli that operates under an LLC. They may not have a member or manager of an LLC on site to service them,” Phillips said during a Wednesday interview with the New York Law Journal and Law.com. “It’s not really a practical alternative.” “I don’t think this decision will be followed unless it’s appealed and affirmed,” he said. The landlords in the case are represented by Jeffrey Klarsfeld of Platte Klarsfeld & Levine. Counsel for the landlords and Passerine didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Nov 26

3 min

Several Las Vegas hotel operators, two software companies and Blackstone all told the Ninth Circuit to reject a rehearing petition for its August decision for a proposed price-fixing class action that accused hotel operators and Blackstone of conspiring to use the software companies' GuestRev software to set prices for Las Vegas hotel rooms. In their filing posted Thursday, hotel operators Caesars Entertainment Inc., Treasure Island LLC, Wynn Resorts Holdings LLC, JC Hospitality LLC, revenue management software vendor Cendyn Group LLC, Cendyn subsidiary The Rainmaker Group Unlimited Inc., Blackstone and its affiliate Blackstone Real Estate Partners VII LP alleged that the Ninth Circuit rightfully ruled that the proposed class failed to show how the alleged price-fixing agreements unfairly restrained trade. The proposed class started its suit in January 2023. They included Blackstone and its affiliate because Blackstone used to operate the Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas hotel. They pushed for a rehearing in September, arguing in part that the software licensing agreements between the hotel operators and Cendyn restrained trade in an anticompetitive way. Their rehearing bid is being supported by the American Antitrust Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on antitrust issues. According to the appellees, a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act requires business agreements to restrain trade in an unfair way. The Ninth Circuit rightfully determined that the software licensing deals between the hotel operators and Cendyn were "'ordinary sales contracts'", not anticompetitive agreements, the appellees argued. "Plaintiffs failed to allege the licensing agreements 'affect[ed] the competitive incentives in the market for hotel-room rentals on the Las Vegas Strip' because they neither revealed any confidential information among the various hotel defendants nor required hotel defendants to follow Cendyn's pricing suggestions," the appellees claimed. The appellees added that the Ninth Circuit ruled the licensing agreements did not prevent the hotel operators from selling rooms in any manner they chose. "Plaintiffs were silent as to how any aspect of those contracts could meet Section 1's threshold requirement that the agreements 'restrain[ed] ... trade in the relevant market,'" the appellees alleged. "That fundamental failure sunk plaintiffs' claim from the start because 'Section 1 requires a causal link between the contested agreement and an anticompetitive restraint of trade in the relevant market.'" To support their argument, the appellees pointed to the Ninth Circuit's 1998 decision in Mularkey v. Holsum Bakery Inc. , which involved a pricing agreement between the bakery and several 7-Eleven convenience stores. The agreement set pricing for the bakery's products in the stores and the Ninth Circuit ruled that it was not a vertical pricing agreement that was anticompetitive, according to the appellees, who also argued that the Mularkey case is similar to the present case. "The software licenses permit the hotel defendants to use their own data to better understand their customers, forecast demand, and generate pricing recommendations," the appellees claimed. "But nothing in those licenses obligates any Cendyn client to use the software or accept its recommendations." "There is no restraint on any hotel defendant's ability to make its own business decisions," they added. The appellees further argued that the proposed class has conceded that hotel operators did not have to follow the GuestRev software's pricing recommendations. In their rehearing petition, the proposed class claimed that the Ninth Circuit wrongfully created a new standard for scrutinizing whether business agreements are anticompetitive, but the appellees argued that the panel was not being unreasonable. "There is nothing novel — in this circuit or elsewhere — about first asking whether an agreement 'restrain[s] ... trade' in a relevant market before asking whether it produces substantial anticompetitive effects in that market," they argued. "This circuit has long engaged in that threshold inquiry, including in Mularkey, 49er Chevrolet, and Newman," they further argued, referring to the Ninth Circuit's Mularkey ruling, its 1986 decision in 49er Chevrolet Inc. v. General Motors Corp. and its 1987 ruling in Newman v. Universal Pictures . The appellees also slammed the proposed class' argument that the Ninth Circuit was required by case law, such as its 2003 decision in Paladin Associates Inc. v. Montana Power Co. , to scrutinize whether the GuestRev agreements were anticompetitive. According to the appellees, cases like Paladin Associates involved business agreements that unfairly restrained trade, unlike the GuestRev agreements. Throughout the rest of their filing, the appellees lodged arguments such as alleging that the proposed class failed to tackle the second part of the Ninth Circuit's ruling. "Even if the individual licensing agreements between Cendyn and the various hotel defendants could be considered restraints of trade," the appellees claimed, "the panel separately concluded that plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead a Section 1 violation 'because antitrust law provides no mechanism by which courts can evaluate the independent agreements between Cendyn and each hotel defendant 'in the aggregate.'" "'Plaintiffs ... fail[ed] to plead facts' showing that any particular agreement 'has a discrete effect on competition,'" they added. Class counsel and counsel for the appellees did not respond to requests for comment on Friday. The proposed class is represented by Steve Berman and Rio Pierce of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Cendyn Group is represented by Sadik H. Huseny, Brendan A. McShane, Timothy L. O'Mara, Melissa A. Sherry, Anna M. Rathbun, Christopher J. Brown and Graham Haviland of Latham & Watkins LLP and Jon C. Williams of Campbell & Williams. The Rainmaker Group is represented by Alicia Rubio-Spring and Arman Oruc of Goodwin Procter LLP and Nicholas J. Santoro of Spencer Fane LLP. Caesars Entertainment is represented by Boris Bershteyn, Ken Schwartz, Michael Menitove and Sam Auld of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP and Adam Hosmer-Henner, Chelsea Latino and Jane Susskind of McDonald Carano LLP. Treasure Island is represented by Patrick J. Reilly, Arthur Zorio, Emily Garnett and Eric D. Walther of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP. Wynn Resorts is represented by Mark C. Holscher and Tammy Tsoumas of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Blackstone and Blackstone Real Estate Partners VII LP are represented by Daniel R. McNutt and Matthew Wolf of McNutt Law Firm PC and Matthew L. McGinnis of Ropes & Gray LLP. JC Hospitality is represented by Kasey J. Curtis, James C. Martin and Charles P. Hyun of Reed Smith LLP. The case is Richard Gibson et al. v. Cendyn Group LLC et al., case number 24-3576, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Nov 7

5 min

Carter Dugan, 44, Partner-in-Charge at Norton Rose Fulbright, Houston, Texas Practice area: Energy and commercial litigation Law school and year of graduation: New York University Law School, 2006 The following has been edited for style. How long have you been at the firm? I have been at Norton Rose Fulbright for 19 years. What year were you promoted/elected to your current role? I was appointed as the Houston office partner-in-charge in December 2024. Were you a partner at another firm before joining your present firm? If so, which one, how long were you there and when did you leave? My entire law career has been at Norton Rose Fulbright. I first started at the firm as a 1L summer associate in the litigation department and never left. I’ve always been drawn to the firm’s culture, amazing colleagues and the clients with whom we work. How would you describe your career trajectory (was it organic or an active pursuit)? Organic. I became a senior associate at Norton Rose Fulbright more than a decade ago. Around that time, my husband and I welcomed twins and a year later, a third child. It was an incredibly busy time for me professionally and personally. I knew I wanted a career as a lawyer and my husband wanted a career as a physician, but it wasn’t always clear how having two busy careers and raising three young children would be possible. My husband and I found creative ways to balance it all: agreeing to different working schedules, having downtown play dates, choosing schools that catered to two working parents and agreeing that perfection wasn’t the standard, but happiness and balance was. On a day-by-day basis, we made it happen. When I made partner, we celebrated as a family, as all five of us contributed. Since I have made partner, the same rules have applied. In 2022, I was promoted to Houston administrative partner, assisting with oversight of the office’s more than 500 people and the office budget. This position prepared me for my current role as the Houston office partner-in-charge. I firmly believe in the philosophy of “being where your feet are.” By excelling in one’s current role and responsibilities, future opportunities unfold naturally. What do you think was the deciding point for the firm in electing/promoting you to your current role? Was it your performance on a specific case? A personality trait? Making connections with the right people? I had an opportunity to serve as the Houston administrative partner prior to my promotion to the office’s partner-in-charge in December. As the Houston administrative partner, I was able to shadow and partner with the then partner-in-charge Kevin O’Gorman. During that time period, Kevin and I had the opportunity to design the Houston office’s new location and also oversee our office move, which was an exciting opportunity and challenge. The firm’s Houston location is the largest firm office by total headcount; ensuring that we had an efficient move that minimally disrupted our people’s daily lives was key to both Kevin and me. I believe we achieved that and our lawyers and business services people are truly enjoying our new offices on Discovery Green. In addition to having the opportunity to serve as administrative partner, the fact that I have spent my entire career at the firm, have deeply invested in relationships within the firm and truly believe in the firm’s collaborative people-first culture made my appointment as partner-in-charge a natural fit and one of which I am especially proud. What unique challenges do you face as it relates to your role? As a dedicated mother of three young children, it can be overwhelming to manage a busy practice and family while also feeling like you are succeeding in both roles. It’s also incredibly important to have the bandwidth to enjoy both. As I struggled to find balance in the beginning of my career, I know how important it is to support other lawyers and the firm in their efforts for a more balanced workplace and flexibility. That is why I am deeply committed to promoting the retention and advancement of qualified women in the workplace and at the highest levels within law firms, corporations and boardrooms. I continually work to develop flexible work programs within Norton Rose Fulbright and in the Houston market and to ensure that qualified women are seen and advanced. I have been the beneficiary of many of those programs and was an early adopter, so it’s easy for me to guide our people through those opportunities. Ensuring all of our employees have opportunities to excel through all stages of life is critically important to me. What’s the best piece of advice you give to someone who wants to rise up the ranks to lead an office? Focus on the present and “be where your feet are.” If you get too caught up in focusing on promotions and climbing the ranks, you will miss the opportunity to truly excel and enjoy where you are. Trust that by dedicating yourself to your present tasks, doors will naturally open for you in the future. Also, take the time to invest in the people with whom you work. Having strong working relationships leads not only to career longevity and a happier career, but also to having the support to be appointed or elected to leadership positions when those opportunities arise. Who had the greatest influence in your career that helped propel you to your current role? My grandfather, James Kerr, was the former head of the Houston office corporate group at Fulbright & Jaworski (the legacy firm that preceded the Norton Rose Fulbright combination). He introduced me to the firm as a child, and that introduction changed the course of my life and career. I grew up in a small town in South Texas and I fondly remember visiting the Houston office. I was mesmerized by every part of the firm. From the sheer size of the office, to all of the lawyers bustling in suits, to the fact that he had so many people who reported to him every day … it all seemed so exciting to me! When I turned 13, my grandfather passed away. Every Fulbright & Jaworski partner was invited to attend his service as an honorary pallbearer, process in together and sit together at the front of the church. I remember looking out at dozens of his partners honoring him during his memorial service. It was a remarkable and beautiful moment to me and my entire family and it was a testament to the respect our firm’s lawyers have for each other. We continue that tradition to this day. I knew then that culture was something of which I wanted to be a part. Serving as the same firm’s Houston office partner-in-charge many decades later is quite a full circle moment. I think my grandfather would be tickled and amazed. How do you utilize technology to benefit the firm/practice and/or business development? We leverage a broad variety of innovative solutions and legal technology to provide the highest value in client service delivery. Norton Rose Fulbright’s e-discovery program was an early adopter of AI. Their use of AI allows them to gain strategic data insights early in disputes, reduce document review costs and quickly summarize deposition transcripts, expert reports and other key documents. Harnessing the power of technology, we generate early directional legal research, extract content from and analyze legal documents and create initial drafts of documents and contracts based on past provisions and precedent. Tech also allows us to create business and operational efficiencies. Our business development team relies on innovative systems to help surface holistic client relationships and insights. Additionally, our pricing and legal practice management teams utilize other tools for budgeting, matter management and data analytics to support the development of fee proposals. Knowing what you know now, what advice would you give to your younger self and/or what would you do differently? I would try to stress less about things outside of my control. Most of the lawyers I know set nearly impossibly high expectations for themselves, stress over issues of every magnitude and have a hard time ever turning off their expanding to-do/worry lists in their minds. To some extent, all of these qualities are what makes a good lawyer. But, these are also qualities that can lead to burnout and people leaving the profession early. Looking back, I would tell myself to focus on those things that are in my control, manage expectations, enjoy the work more (and enjoy vacations more) and trust that generally, everything will work out if you are well-prepared. Do you have a prediction on how the legal industry will evolve over the next several years? I believe AI will become more embedded in legal workflows, particularly in areas like contract review, legal research, discovery, compliance monitoring and due diligence. I also feel confident AI will develop in ways it’s hard to imagine today. As mentioned above, our e-discovery program was an early adopter of AI and we’re continuing to expand how this technology can be implemented throughout the firm. Of course, at the same time, we are also mindful of the limitations of AI; I expect that there will be more specific delineations on what AI should not be used for in the future as well. Please share with us any firm or industry initiatives that you are working on as well as the impact you hope to achieve. The firm is focused on growing in a measurable and sustainable way. Exceeding client expectations is at the forefront, which means we are always seeking high-level practitioners. We are strategic about who we add, and we are well-positioned to expand further, especially within the energy sector. For example, this year the Houston office welcomed partner Thomas Verity, an energy-focused M&A lawyer, as well as an accomplished energy litigation team of four led by litigation partner Graig Alvarez. We look forward to continued growth in the Houston office.

Nov 12

7 min

Live Nation told a New York federal court there's no need for a trial in the antitrust case from the U.S. Department of Justice and a contingent of states because enforcers have not shown that it has monopoly power over any live entertainment market or that it hurt competition. Live Nation said in a redacted version of a summary judgment motion filed on Tuesday that enforcers have not done enough to back their claims accusing the company of systematically corrupting competition across "virtually every aspect of the live music ecosystem" over a 15-year period. "Strong words," the motion said. "If there was a lick of truth to them, one would expect plaintiffs to now have mountains of evidence demonstrating monopoly power and the anticompetitive effects of Live Nation's conduct. And yet, after an 18-month investigation and a year of discovery, plaintiffs have barely a molehill." The DOJ and a contingent of 40 state-level enforcers accuse Live Nation of violating antitrust law over its alleged efforts to control the live music supply chain, from ticketing to promotion to venue operations. The case targets exclusive promotion deals and long-term ticketing contracts, along with alleged threats of retaliation against rivals and concert venues following Live Nation's 2010 purchase of ticketing giant Ticketmaster. The summary judgment motion, initially filed under seal on Nov. 11, said enforcers accuse Live Nation of having a monopoly over six separate markets. But the alleged markets are all "gerrymandered in obvious and legally indefensible ways" to suggest the company has a dominant share. They did this largely by limiting the markets to a subset of the nation's larger concert venues, the motion said, because if they included all major venues and artists, Live Nation and Ticketmaster's market shares would be too low to infer monopoly power. "These made-for-litigation markets plainly do not encompass 'the area of effective competition' that the law requires," the motion said, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 Ohio v. Amex decision. One of the markets centers on services provided to "large amphitheaters" with capacities of 8,000 or more, yet the motion said artists and promoters routinely substitute arenas and other venues for large amphitheaters. The other markets focus on various services provided to "major concert venues," which the motion said only includes amphitheaters and arenas with a capacity of 8,000 or more that host 10 or more concerts a year. This excludes stadiums, smaller amphitheaters and large theaters that could all serve as reasonable substitutes, the motion said. As an example, the motion said the government's own expert calculated that Ticketmaster's market share in primary ticketing services drops from 86% to 49% when stadiums are included in the relevant market. The motion said there is also no direct evidence of any anticompetitive effects from the alleged conduct. The case accuses Ticketmaster of forcing venues into exclusive ticketing contracts when they would prefer to use multiple ticketing platforms. But after thousands of hours of deposition testimony and millions of pages of documents, the motion said that theory "turns out not to be even arguably true." "To the contrary, every venue witness has testified that they seek and prefer exclusive ticketing contracts," the motion said. "And there is no competent evidence that exclusive contracting allows Ticketmaster to extract supracompetitive prices from venues, let alone by excluding competition from rivals." The same is true of claims that Ticketmaster wins business by threatening to divert Live Nation-promoted concerts away from venues that choose a competing ticketing service, the motion said. Just three venue witnesses supported this claim, the motion said, and only one in the last five years. "To put that in context, Ticketmaster has negotiated thousands of ticketing contracts with major concert venues over the course of the relevant time period," the motion said. "Three out of thousands could not possibly prove the market-wide anticompetitive effects required for a monopolization claim." Discovery has also disproven claims that Live Nation uses its portfolio of amphitheaters to coerce artists into using its concert promotion services for other portions of their tours, according to motion. Live Nation noted that enforcers have deposed only a single artist in the entire litigation. "Conduct is exclusionary within the meaning of Section 2 [of the Sherman Act] only if it harms consumer welfare, most commonly by raising prices, lowering output, or reducing quality," the motion said. "There is no evidence of that in the record." U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian refused to pare back the claims in March, after finding that the state enforcers have standing to seek damages for "supracompetitive prices" allegedly paid by concertgoers as a result of the conduct. The ruling also preserved claims that artists have been forced to use Live Nation's promotion services. Judge Subramanian previously refused Live Nation's bid to transfer the case to the District of Columbia, where a federal court oversaw a settlement clearing the Ticketmaster purchase. The claims are similar to those in a proposed class action from consumers that was brought before the government case, where the U.S. Supreme Court refused last month to clarify issues surrounding Live Nation's failed bid to send the case to arbitration. That case is pending in California federal court. The Federal Trade Commission and a group of states also has a case pending in California federal court accusing Live Nation and Ticketmaster of deceiving consumers and artists by not disclosing fees and by helping brokers buy and resell millions of dollars' worth of tickets at a substantial markup. Representatives for the DOJ and Live Nation declined to comment on Wednesday. The government is represented by Bonny Sweeney, Arianna Markel and Matthew Huppert of the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. The states are represented by their respective attorneys general, including Adam Gitlin of the Washington, D.C., Office of the Attorney General. Live Nation and Ticketmaster are represented by Alfred Pfeiffer, Timothy O'Mara, Jennifer Giordano, Andrew Gass, Kelly Fayne, Lindsey Champlin, David Marriott and Robin Gushman of Latham & Watkins LLP, and Lauren Moskowitz, Jesse Weiss and Nicole Peles of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP. The case is U.S. et al. v. Live Nation et al., case number 1:24-cv-03973, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Nov 19

5 min

A California federal judge has tossed for good negligence and fraud claims from a lawsuit by hundreds of Taylor Swift fans who allege Live Nation Entertainment Inc. and Ticketmaster LLC's anticompetitive conduct caused the Eras tour ticket sale "disaster," but kept alive breach of contract and antitrust claims. In a 2-page order on Nov. 21, U.S. District Judge George H. Wu dismissed four separate claims of negligence, fraud and negligent misrepresentation without leave to amend, while allowing the plaintiffs to amend their breach of contract claim. However, in keeping alive the contract claim, Judge Wu warned concertgoers that they must identify the specific contract terms and the nature of the alleged breach. He noted that he already asked the plaintiffs to be more specific in a prior order tossing the claim with leave to amend, and yet he is still "left to guess" what the terms of the contract are. "The court will allow plaintiffs one last opportunity," the order said. "The court will caution plaintiffs, however, that it will not accept general references to supporting exhibits; Plaintiffs must identify the language from any exhibit cited that supports the existence of any alleged express term of the contract." Judge Wu also declined to toss four additional antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, California's Cartwright Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. The ruling keeps alive high-stakes litigation initially filed in 2022 in Los Angeles Superior Court by more than two dozen Swift fans who claim Ticketmaster engages in an anticompetitive scheme in which it forces fans to exclusively use its services to purchase tickets, so that it can set prices that are "above what a competitive market price would be." Ticketmaster also forces concertgoers to use its secondary ticket exchange when reselling tickets, they allege. The state case was later removed to federal court, and several hundred more fans have since joined the litigation as plaintiffs. Although the case is not a proposed class action, the latest amended complaint, filed in July, names 364 plaintiffs who together assert a total of eight counts against the defendants, including exclusive dealing, unfair practices and monopolization in violation of Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, California's Cartwright Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. In August, the concertgoers voluntarily dismissed claims against a third defendant, StadCo LLC, which owns SoFi Stadium in Southern California, and that same month, the remaining defendants filed another motion to dismiss. In his latest ruling, Judge Wu granted the motion in part. Despite multiple pleading rounds, the concertgoers have still failed to sufficiently allege the "who, what, when, where and how" details for each alleged misrepresentation, along with an explanation for why the statement was misleading or false, to support viable fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, the judge said. Judge Wu also held that the concertgoers' negligence claim is likely barred by the economic loss rule, which generally prevents a party to a contract from recovering for economic losses in tort law unless the party can show there was harm beyond a broken contractual promise. Even if that rule didn't bar the negligence claim, the judge said he's "unpersuaded" by the concertgoers' suggestion that the defendants owe them a duty of care outside a contract based solely on the exclusive control of their online ticketing service, even if the companies knew of the unprecedented demand for tickets, Judge Wu concluded. "Plaintiffs' reliance on the aftermath of the presales (i.e., defendants' purported failure to deliver on the promises they made) cannot support a plausible fraud theory," the order said. Counsel for the parties and representatives for Live Nation and Ticketmaster didn't immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday. The lawsuit is one of several high-stakes legal disputes that Ticketmaster and Live Nation are facing over alleged antitrust violations, including lawsuits filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, several states and Washington, D.C. The plaintiffs are represented by John M. Genga of Genga & Associates PC and Jennifer A. Kinder of Kinder Law PLLC. Live Nation and Ticketmaster are represented by Timothy L. O'Mara, Alicia R Jovais, Robin L. Gushman and Samuel R. Jeffrey of Latham & Watkins LLP. The case is Julie Barfuss et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment Inc. et al., case number 2:23-cv-01114, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Nov 25

3 min