Boston-based law firm Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. has filed a lawsuit against its former client Parus Holdings, Inc., alleging the company failed to pay over $2 million in “success fees” tied to a series of lucrative patent litigation outcomes. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, sheds light on the growing tension between law firms and clients over performance-based compensation structures in intellectual property cases.

Background: A Partnership Built on Patent Enforcement

According to Mintz’s complaint, the firm entered into a 2019 engagement agreement with Parus Holdings, a Texas-based technology company specializing in voice-enabled and AI-driven communication technologies. Under the agreement, Mintz agreed to provide legal services, including portfolio evaluation, patent enforcement strategy, and litigation support, with part of its compensation tied to the results achieved through enforcement actions.

Parus had long sought to protect its innovative intellectual property, which includes patents covering voice browsing, speech recognition, and voice-command technologies. These patents have been at the center of multiple lawsuits filed against major technology corporations such as Apple, Google, Samsung, and LG, alleging infringement on Parus’s proprietary voice-assistant and voice-browsing innovations.

The Dispute Over Success Fees

Mintz claims that under the terms of their engagement, the firm was entitled to receive contingent success fees based on recoveries or settlements resulting from Parus’s patent enforcement efforts. The firm alleges that after it provided years of extensive legal services—including case preparation, filings, and negotiation strategy—Parus received financial recoveries from several of its infringement lawsuits.

However, Mintz asserts that Parus has refused to pay the agreed-upon success fees, totaling more than $2 million. The firm argues that it upheld its end of the agreement by helping Parus achieve favorable results in its intellectual property disputes, entitling it to the promised compensation.

According to the complaint, Parus “wrongfully retained the benefits” of Mintz’s legal work while refusing to pay for the contingent portion of the agreement. Mintz is now seeking damages, interest, and attorney’s fees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Details from the Engagement Agreement

The 2019 engagement agreement reportedly outlined specific performance benchmarks that would trigger success fees once certain litigation milestones or settlements were achieved. Such arrangements are common in high-stakes patent litigation, where clients may be unable or unwilling to pay full hourly fees up front and instead offer a percentage of any recovery.

Mintz contends that it provided significant value by developing Parus’s IP litigation framework, identifying infringement targets, and initiating enforcement actions that led to successful outcomes. The firm’s filing argues that Parus’s refusal to pay violates both the spirit and the letter of the contract.

Parus, for its part, has not yet filed a formal response, but sources familiar with the dispute suggest the company disputes the characterization of the recoveries as triggering events under the fee agreement.

Parus Holdings’ Legal History

Parus Holdings has been a prominent player in the voice-assistant patent enforcement space for over a decade. The company, originally founded in Chicago and now headquartered in Austin, Texas, has amassed a robust patent portfolio in voice-interaction technologies.

In 2021 and 2022, Parus launched several high-profile patent infringement lawsuits against major tech companies, including Google and Samsung, asserting its rights over technology enabling users to perform tasks via voice commands. Many of these cases were litigated or strategically settled, forming the backdrop for Mintz’s current fee claim.

Parus’s aggressive enforcement strategy has also drawn industry scrutiny, with critics accusing it of pursuing “patent monetization” rather than product innovation. However, Parus has maintained that it merely seeks to protect its legitimate intellectual property and ensure fair compensation for the use of its technologies.

A Broader Issue in the Legal Industry

The Mintz-Parus dispute underscores a broader trend in the legal profession—especially in intellectual property law—toward performance-based or contingent fee arrangements. Such agreements can benefit clients by reducing upfront legal costs, but they also increase the risk of post-litigation fee disputes if the parties disagree on what constitutes a “success.”

For law firms like Mintz, success-based compensation provides the potential for significant rewards in exchange for the risk of partial or delayed payment. However, when clients fail to honor these agreements, firms can face lengthy legal battles to recover fees.

Legal industry experts note that success-fee disputes have become increasingly common as firms seek creative billing arrangements amid competitive pressures and rising litigation costs. The outcome of this case could have implications for how law firms structure similar agreements in the future, especially in the patent enforcement arena.

What Comes Next

Mintz is seeking $2.1 million in unpaid fees, plus interest and costs, and is asking the court to enforce the agreement’s terms. The case will test how strictly courts interpret contingent fee arrangements when specific definitions of “success” are contested.

For now, the dispute remains before the Massachusetts federal court. Neither Mintz nor Parus has issued public comments beyond the filings.

As the legal battle unfolds, the case serves as a reminder to law firms and clients alike about the importance of clear, unambiguous engagement terms—especially in high-stakes IP litigation where financial recoveries can be substantial.

Looking for opportunities in top IP and litigation practices like Mintz? Visit LawCrossing.com to explore the latest legal job openings across the country. Discover positions that match your expertise and take the next step in your legal career today.

The post Mintz Seeks $2 Million in Success Fees from Former Client in Patent Dispute first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A Legal Fight to Keep the Doors Open

Faculty, students, and alumni of Golden Gate University Law School are fighting to prevent the closure of the 123-year-old institution. A pivotal hearing is scheduled for next week in a California state court where plaintiffs will seek an injunction against the abrupt decision to shut down the program.

Hearing Set for Injunction Request

The hearing to discuss the motion for an injunction is set for Tuesday, July 30, in the San Francisco County Superior Court. Presiding over the case will be Judge Richard B. Ulmer Jr. Ryan Griffith, the lead attorney from Bay Area Receivership Group and an adjunct professor at Golden Gate University, has been actively involved in the legal proceedings. Griffith filed a complaint earlier this year on behalf of four students and the alumni association, citing breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unlawful business practices, and fraud.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

The Controversial Teach-Out Plan

In March, the American Bar Association (ABA) approved a revised Teach-Out Plan, which allows the school’s accreditation to continue until July 2027 but halts the admission of new students after this summer. Current students are to be transferred to the University of San Francisco and Mitchell Hamline School of Law in Minnesota. However, Griffith argues that the details of this plan have not been transparently shared with the affected parties.

Accusations Against University Leadership

The complaint accuses the university president, David J. Fike, of engaging in schemes that financially burdened the law program, leading to its proposed closure. Allegations include incurring millions of dollars in debt and hastily implementing online legal programs. Griffith highlights Fike’s history of financial crises at other institutions, pointing out similar outcomes during his tenure at Marygrove College and Holy Names University.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Implications for Students and Faculty

The abrupt closure announcement has particularly impacted students who were offered free tuition in 2022, as they have yet to complete their bar exams. Griffith stresses that these students would not have enrolled had they known about the impending closure and relocation to Minnesota. He contends that Golden Gate University has failed to provide evidence against the injunction, which aims to allow current students to graduate without disruption.

Lack of Clarity and Communication

There has been no clear communication from the successor institutions, the University of San Francisco and Mitchell Hamline, about their roles in the Teach-Out Plan. This lack of verification has left students uncertain about their educational futures. Griffith’s reply brief emphasizes that the absence of documentation from these schools is significant, as they are not obligated to honor the commitments made by Golden Gate University.

A Broader Issue in Legal Education

Griffith points out that Golden Gate University is not alone in facing such challenges, noting the example of Argosy University’s Western State College of Law, which managed to navigate financial troubles through a receivership. He advocates for a similar approach to be considered for Golden Gate University.

Awaiting the Court’s Decision

The upcoming hearing will determine if the injunction to keep the law school open for another year will be granted. Following this, efforts to enter into receivership may begin. Griffith, despite being an adjunct professor, expresses his personal stake in the matter, highlighting his disappointment at seeing his alma mater potentially close.

University’s Response

A spokesperson for Golden Gate University clarified that the institution is not closing but has reached agreements with other law schools for the teach-out process. Despite this, the plaintiffs remain unconvinced and continue to seek clarity and a more secure plan for current students.

Legal Counsel and Next Steps

Legal representatives for Golden Gate University, including Rene I. Gamboa, Robert J. Flemming III, and Mark S. Posard, have not commented on the case. The court’s decision on the injunction will be a critical step in determining the future of Golden Gate University Law School.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Legal Battle Over Golden Gate University Law School's Closure first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

An uproar has ensued as the Alumni Association, alongside four current students, has taken legal action against Golden Gate University School of Law. Filed in California state court, the lawsuit aims to halt the university’s intended closure of its juris doctor (J.D.) program.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Background and Rationale for Legal Action

Golden Gate University officials dropped a bombshell in late November, revealing plans to terminate the J.D. program come May. The decision comes as a response to financial challenges exacerbated by declining enrollment rates, a sluggish job market for graduates, and concerning pass rates in the bar exam. Despite the closure of the 123-year-old J.D. program, the institution intends to maintain offerings in non-J.D. law-related graduate and undergraduate degrees.

Allegations of Breach of Contract and Mismanagement

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit, filed in San Francisco, alleges a breach of contract on the part of the university. They claim that students were kept uninformed about the dire financial state of the law school. Furthermore, they argue that administrators have failed to provide adequate transfer options for affected students.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Golden Gate University swiftly responded to the lawsuit, denouncing it as “frivolous” and expressing confidence in its dismissal. However, the legal battle also targets Golden Gate’s president, David Fike, accusing him of mismanagement. Allegations against Fike include leveraging loans against the law school campus, launching unproven degree programs, and implementing tuition-free models that ultimately led to financial strain.

Call for Transparency and Accountability

The complaint voices incredulity at the university’s decision to offer free tuition and then encountering financial insolvency before those students could complete their degrees. Attorney Ryan Griffith, a Golden Gate law alumnus representing the plaintiffs, underscored the importance of the judicial process in uncovering information that university officials have allegedly concealed from stakeholders.

Legal Objectives and Implications

In their pursuit of justice, the plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the closure of the J.D. program and are also demanding damages. Notably, the complaint highlights that the closure plan lacks approval from the American Bar Association, a crucial regulatory body in legal education.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Alumni and Students Sue Golden Gate University Over Closure of J.D. Program first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that a white law student, expelled from Howard University School of Law, a historically Black institution, may proceed with his discrimination lawsuit against the school, though on narrower grounds.

Judge’s Decision

Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed most of the claims brought by Michael Newman against Howard Law and various administrators. However, the judge allowed limited claims of defamation, breach of contract, and race discrimination related to Newman’s scholarship to move forward.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Lawsuit Allegations

Newman, representing himself, initiated the lawsuit in January 2023, alleging racist abuse and wrongful expulsion from the school in 2022. He claimed that clashes with classmates and administrators, often over comments they found inflammatory or offensive, led to his expulsion.

Dismissed Claims

The judge dismissed most of Newman’s contract and discrimination claims, as well as his claims of retaliation, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Response from Howard University

Interim law dean Lisa A. Crooms-Robinson and Crowell & Moring partner Amanda Shafer Berman, representing Howard University defendants, did not respond to requests for comment.

In its motion to dismiss, the university stated that disciplinary action against Newman was taken for reasons unrelated to his race, citing misuse of school email and listserv despite warnings.

Uncover exclusive insights and strategic approaches through the State of the Lateral Law Firm Legal Market 2024—an in-depth report delving into the intricate patterns and current trends within the lateral law firm market.

Details of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit outlines a series of messages posted by Newman to law school listservs, group chats, or emails related to race, which classmates objected to. Newman claimed classmates called him racist names like “the White Panther.”

Administrators warned Newman about his disruptive posts, leading to discrimination complaints and administrative charges. The university concluded that Newman violated the student code of conduct, resulting in his expulsion recommendation.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

Newman may pursue his breach of contract claim alleging faculty manipulation of his grades, leading to the loss of a $26,000 annual scholarship. He can also proceed with his claim that faculty interference with his scholarship was racially motivated.

However, the judge ruled Newman failed to demonstrate disparate treatment based on race as no other Howard law students violated listserv rules to the extent he did.

Newman’s Statement

Newman expressed his motivation for the lawsuit, aiming to highlight that historically Black colleges and universities are not immune to racial animosities and hostilities.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Expelled White Law Student Allowed to Pursue Discrimination Lawsuit Against Howard University School of Law first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a recent development, a federal judge has ruled that Twitter, now rebranded as X Corp, violated contractual obligations by failing to fulfill promised bonuses amounting to millions of dollars for its employees. The decision resulted from a lawsuit filed by Mark Schobinger, the former senior director of compensation at Twitter, who left the company owned by Elon Musk in May and claimed breach of contract.

Allegations of Unfulfilled Bonus Commitments

Schobinger’s lawsuit asserted that before and after Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter last year, the company assured employees of receiving 50% of their targeted bonuses for 2022. However, Twitter allegedly failed to make the stipulated bonus payments, leading Schobinger to file a breach of contract claim.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Judge’s Ruling on Contractual Violation

In response to Twitter’s motion to dismiss the case, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria upheld Schobinger’s claims, stating that he had plausible grounds for a breach of contract under California law. The judge emphasized that a bonus plan covered Schobinger, and once he fulfilled the required actions as per Twitter’s instructions, a binding contract was established. Consequently, Twitter’s refusal to pay the promised bonus was deemed a violation of the agreement.

Twitter’s Defense and Legal Jurisdiction

Twitter’s legal team argued that the promise was oral and did not constitute a formal contract. Additionally, they contended that Texas law should govern the case. However, Judge Chhabria dismissed these arguments, asserting that California law was applicable and that Twitter’s counterclaims were unsuccessful.

X Corp’s Response

X Corp, the rebranded entity resulting from Elon Musk’s acquisition, did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the ruling. Notably, the company no longer maintains a media relations office.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Ongoing Legal Challenges for X Corp

This ruling adds to the growing list of legal challenges faced by X Corp since Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, which involved a significant reduction in the workforce. Various lawsuits, including claims of discrimination against older employees, women, and individuals with disabilities, as well as allegations of inadequate notice for mass layoffs, have been filed against the company. X Corp, however, denies any wrongdoing in these cases. The legal landscape surrounding X Corp continues to evolve as it navigates through these challenges.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Twitter, Now X Corp, Found in Breach of Contract for Unpaid Bonuses first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Husband and wife lawyers Jared and Elizabeth Lee Beck have filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Twitter, claiming they are eligible for reinstatement to the social media platform based on a tweet by Elon Musk. The lawsuit was filed through the couple’s company, Don’t Tread On Us, in January 2023 and was removed to federal court in Miami on March 9.

The lawsuit argues that the tweet by Musk on November 24, 2022, in which he offered “a general amnesty to suspended accounts, provided that they have not broken the law or engaged in egregious spam,” changed the terms of Twitter’s user agreement. The Becks were kicked off Twitter in 2019 after Jared Beck made derogatory comments about Kamala Harris when she was a presidential candidate.

The Becks have had run-ins with the Democratic National Committee and Donald Trump. Their law firm sued the Democratic National Committee in 2016, alleging that it favored the Hillary Clinton campaign while undermining Bernie Sanders. The lawsuit was dismissed on standing grounds, but it “inspired a vigorous social media discourse” and was vital to their cause, the Becks say in their Twitter lawsuit.

The Becks also represented real estate investors suing over the abandoned Trump International Hotel & Tower project in Fort Lauderdale. The litigation gained media attention in 2016 due to Elizabeth Lee Beck’s claim that Trump called her disgusting when she sought a break to pump breast milk during his 2011 deposition.

Your salary is a reflection of your skills and experience. Make sure you’re being compensated accordingly by checking out LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Twitter seeks to transfer the suit to the US District Court in the Northern District of California. The social media platform contends in a motion to dismiss filed on March 15 that its only contract is the user agreement, which allows suspension for any reason and does not require reinstatement. The company also claims that it is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which bars claims for traditional editorial functions such as the decision to remove third-party content.

The Becks, who supported Bernie Sanders in 2016, met in 2003 as summer associates at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. They are now civil litigators in Miami at their law firm, Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers.

The case has gained media attention due to its high-profile plaintiffs and the involvement of Elon Musk. However, legal experts are skeptical about the prospects of the lawsuit succeeding, given Twitter’s broad discretion to enforce its user agreement and the protection afforded social media platforms by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The case also raises broader questions about the power of social media platforms and the ability of users to challenge decisions to suspend or ban accounts. While platforms like Twitter have policies to govern content moderation, these policies are often opaque and subject to change. Critics argue that there is a lack of transparency and accountability in making decisions, leaving users with limited recourse to challenge them.

Overall, the Becks’ lawsuit against Twitter will likely be an uphill battle, given the legal protections afforded to social media platforms and their broad discretion to enforce their user agreements. However, the case highlights broader concerns about the power of these platforms and the need for greater transparency and accountability in their content moderation policies.

The post Lawyers Sue Twitter for Breach of Contract After Being Kicked Off the Platform Following Elon Musk’s Amnesty Tweet first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: A jewelry company is suing Sarah Jessica Parker for allegedly not endorsing their brand, despite being paid millions. 

Does Sarah Jessica Parker cash checks without working for them? That’s what one jewelry company is claiming, and they are suing the “Sex and the City” star for breach of contract.

Kat Florence Design Limited said that they inked a deal with Parker for $7.5 million in 2015. In exchange for the money, Parker was supposed to promote the brand and allow the company to use her likeness to market its “Sarah Jessica Parker D-Flawless Diamond collection,” according to Page Six. 

Kat Florence said that they paid Parker half of the money and covered her lavish expenses, and in turn, the actress was supposed to promote the jewelry at events and make an appearance at the store’s opening in London. The plaintiff said that Parker did not show up at the brand’s launch event and failed to mention the jewelry when she made red carpet appearances. Kat Florence said that instead Parker focused mostly on promoting her HBO show “Divorce” and her perfume line.

In its lawsuit, Kat Florence said that Parker was scheduled to do several high-profile interviews to talk about the jewelry, but that she failed to do so.

“Instead of doing the interviews, [Parker] simply claimed that it would be better for [her] if she promoted her own television show instead which would then indirectly assist [Kat Florence Design] in promoting her line,” the lawsuit said. “[Parker] even refused to do the simplest of marketing and promotion such as follow [Kat Florence Design] on Instagram.”

Kat Florence filed its federal lawsuit in Manhattan on Wednesday. The company said that Parker’s refusal to endorse the jewelry resulted in the brand’s failure.

“The failure of [Parker] to participate during this time period has resulted in the loss of the line, the loss of the London store, the loss of goodwill and has severely damaged the reputation of [Kat Florence Designs],” the lawsuit said.

A representative for the actress told Page Six that she fulfilled her end of the deal and that she should be paid the remaining millions left under her contract, which was obtained by The Blast.

The Blast obtained a copy of the lawsuit and found that Parker, 53, had strict demands written into her Kat Florence contract. For instance, Parker refused to do non-English interviews, controlled staff’s meal breaks, and refused to be filmed in a behind-the-scenes manner. Parker also requested she choose her own glam squad that Kat Florence would pay for, and she wanted a trailer for her team and a separate one for herself.

Parker also requested that Kat Florence fly her first-class with two guests and that she be housed in a five-star hotel in a suite while her guests were given their own rooms on the same floor. She requested $200 a day for herself and $100 a day for both of her guests.

The company was also responsible for giving Parker security on work days.

Kat Florence wanted to put Parker’s name or face on shopping bags or window displays, but Parker refused. Parker also refused to allow life-sized cut-outs be made of her, and she wanted final approval if the company hired someone else to endorse the line.

In the Kat Florence lawsuit, they said that Sarah made it difficult to schedule a launch event and that her refusal to show up to the event and promote the line constituted a breach of contract.

• Vivendi to Pay $955 Million for Breach of Contract 
• Chuck Norris Wants to Battle CBS in Court 

What do you think of the lawsuit against Sarah Jessica Parker? Let us know in the comments below.

The post Sarah Jessica Parker Sued by Jewelry Company for Breach of Contract first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Martial arts master Chuck Norris is suing CBS and Sony for $30 million. 

Who would win a fight between Chuck Norris, CBS, and mega-studio Sony? In a Taekwondo battle, it’s safe to bet on Chuck Norris, but the legendary martial arts master is gearing up for another type of war.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Norris is suing Sony for $30 million because they allegedly cheated him out of at least $30 million in profits from his successful series “Walker, Texas Ranger.”

On Wednesday, Norris, through his company Top Kick Productions, sued CBS and Sony Pictures. He said that the network and studio were self-dealing and not paying Norris his share of streaming video-on-demand revenue.

In the lawsuit, Norris said that he was promised 23% of the profits of “Walker,” a TV series that began in 1993 and ran until 2001. Norris said the show was a hit because of his fame and image as a martial arts master.

“Chuck Norris’ life, image and brand are among the most positive and patriotic in the United States,” said the complaint. “Put bluntly, the public loves Chuck Norris, because there are few men left who honor country and family and served others and whose public values and ethics match the actual life that one has chosen to live.”

Norris is represented by attorney Scott Street, who said that the series has made $692 million in revenue to date.

“This 23 percent profit participation has been, and will continue to be, a valuable right, because Walker has been lucrative and popular in syndication, generating over $692 million in revenue to date,” the complaint stated. “But, on information and belief, as technology improved, the Defendants focused less on marketing Walker to television stations and DVD viewers and more on promoting the show on S-VOD services, some of which they owned or co-owned.”

Norris claimed that CBS has been engaging in creative accounting, not including streaming VOD revenue in the profit participation statements sent to his company since 2004. He added that Sony did not send statements at all.

Norris, through Top Kick, is suing for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Even though the show has not been on the air in years, Norris said that it is continuously popular because of his fandom.

Norris, 77, served in the United States Air Force before becoming a martial arts competitor. That led to his first action movie appearance in 1968 and a friendship with another action legend, Bruce Lee. Norris went on to become a huge action movie star, and he appeared in films such as “Way of the Dragon” and “Lone Wolf McQuade.”

In the 1990s, Norris transitioned from movies to television. “Walker, Texas Ranger” was a huge success, airing for eight seasons and finding a home in syndication.

• Richard Carpenter Sues for Unpaid Royalties 
• Sylvester Stallone Battles Warner Brothers Over “Demolition Man” Royalties 

What do you think of Chuck Norris’ lawsuit? Let us know in the comments below.

The post Lawsuit: Chuck Norris Wants to Battle CBS, Sony Over “Walker, Texas Ranger” first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: The new owner of Yahoo is getting into a legal battle with Mozilla over a poorly made contract by former CEO Marissa Mayer.

The new owner of Yahoo, Oath, which happens to be owned by Verizon, is now fighting with Mozilla over a badly crafted search deal made by former Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer. The legal battle picked up last week as Yahoo Holdings and Oath filed a complaint against Mozilla.

The lawsuit against Mozilla claims that they improperly terminated an agreement with Yahoo. Now Mozilla claims a breach of contract against Yahoo in a cross-complaint just filed.

In mid-November, Mozilla announced they would be returning to Google, their longtime search provider for U.S., Canada, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Google has been Mozilla’s partner in other countries even though Mozilla has deals with Baidu in China and Yandex in Russia. They also announced a new browser, Firefox Quantum.

In response to the lawsuit by Oath, Mozilla stated: “We recently exercised our contractual right to terminate our agreement with Yahoo based on a number of factors including doing what’d best for our brand, our effort to provide quality web search, and the broader content experience for our users.”

Recode broke the news of the building battle in mid-2016. They reported that the contract terms stipulated that whichever company acquired Yahoo must pay Mozilla the annual payments of $375 million through the end of the contract in 2019. The buyer must do this even if they did not want to work with Mozilla. Mayer was the one who made the deal in late 2014 when Yahoo became the default search engine for Mozilla.

Mozilla had switched to Yahoo from Google when Mayer offered a beneficial deal that provided unparalleled terms protecting Mozilla in case there was a change-in-power at Yahoo. Mayer made the deal under the assumption that it would never happen. The agreement gave Mozilla the right to leave the partnership if, under their discretion and in a specific time period, they did not find the new owner acceptable. Even if Mozilla did leave and make another deal, Yahoo was still required to pay the annual revenue guarantee of $375 million.

Mozilla legal head Denelle Dixon continued, “Immediately following Yahoo’s acquisition, we undertook a lengthy, multi-month process to seek assurances from Yahoo and its acquirers with respect to those factors. When it became clear that continuing to use Yahoo as our default search provider would have a negative impact on all of the above, we exercised our contractual right to terminate the agreement and entered into an agreement with another provider. The terms of our contract are clear and our post-termination rights under our contract with Yahoo should continue to be enforced. We enter into all of our relationships with a shared goal to deliver a great user experience and further the web as an open platform. No relationship should end this way – litigation doesn’t further any goals for the ecosystem. Still, we are proud of how we conducted our business and product work throughout the relationship, how we handled the termination of the agreement, and we are confident in our legal positions.”

The new owner of Yahoo has been a problem for Mozilla, who relies on a robust search partner for their business. They depend on the payments from Yahoo for being their default option for Firefox users. Recode explains that at one time, roughly 90 percent of Mozilla’s revenue was from its previous deal with Google, where they were receiving an annual guarantee of $300 million.

Do you think contracts should be respected, even if they are badly made to benefit one side? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below.

To learn more about Yahoo’s recent problems, read these articles:

• Yahoo Hit with Another Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
• Lawsuit: Ex-Yahoo Employee Challenges Performance Review System
• Yahoo Secretly Scanned Email Accounts for the Government

Photo: flickr.com

The post Yahoo Owner, Oath, Battles with Mozilla first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: A former University of North Dakota Law School student is filing a civil lawsuit against the school, accusing it of wrongfully dismissing him from the Juris Doctor program.

According to WDAZ.com, a lawsuit has been filed against the University of North Dakota Law School, the university president, and four law school employees. The suit was filed by Garet Bradford, a 46-year-old who argues he was not granted due process and was discriminated against because of his age. He also adds that his freedom of speech was limited before he was kicked out of the school last month.

A lawsuit over the ability to fire tenured professors at the William Mitchell School of Law was dropped last month.

On May 13, Bradford was notified via email that he was being dismissed from the law school. Apparently, the school summoned Bradford around the start of his second semester at the law school to discuss issues with his application. Bradford had been accepted to the school eight months earlier.

In the complaint, Bradford alleges that he tried to work things out with his professors and administrators, including Professor Steven Morrison, UND President Robert Kelley, Dean Kathryn Rand, and Assistant Dean Bradley Parrish. The lawsuit was amended on June 9 to add Professor James Grijalva as a defendant. Bradford contends that he appealed a quiz grade from Grijalva in February, before his application was questioned. He was told that he lacked character and that his tone was negative.

Phi Kappa Psi may file a lawsuit against Rolling Stone.

Additionally, the complaint accuses UND professor Kirsten Dauphinais of telling Bradford, “Every professor has an issue with you.”

Bradford seeks unspecified monetary damages and attorney fees. Additionally, he has filed a restraining order against several officials at UND and the law school.

After Bradford was dismissed from the school, he had a meeting with Provost Thomas DiLorenzo. According to the complaint, Parrish accused Bradford of “going over his head.”

American Apparel also faces a defamation lawsuit.

The case is “in limbo,” according to Bradford, until a judge signs it. If the suit does proceed, Bradford said that he will be able to seek “extensive” repayment in damages, although the final amount of any damages would be up to a jury. Bradford remarked, “I wouldn’t be doing this for a cup of coffee.”

The lawsuit further alleges that Bradford suffered defamation, emotional distress, and that the UND Law School breached its contract.

Source: WDAZ

Photo credit: law.und.edu

The post Ex-UND Law Student Files Suit against the School first appeared on JDJournal Blog.