Rachael E. Meny
Partner

rmeny@kvn.com
Tel. (415) 676-2245

Education

University of Michigan Law School, J.D., cum laude, 1995

Mills College, B.A., 1992

Bar Admissions

California

Rachael E. Meny

Rachael Meny has extensive experience handling trade secret and employee mobility disputes, complex civil litigations and white collar criminal matters. She has successfully represented companies, venture funds and partnerships, and individuals in litigation regarding trade secrets/employee mobility, securities fraud, mortgage fraud, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, breaches of fiduciary duty, breaches of contract claims, Business and Professions Code Section 17200, unfair business practices, antitrust and intellectual property matters. 

Ms. Meny has extensive experience representing technology companies, other companies and executives throughout the U.S. in pre-litigation and litigation disputes regarding trade secrets, employee mobility and non-competition matters. Ms. Meny litigates such matters in state and federal courts, but also frequently provides counseling and advice on pre-litigation disputes that allows such matters to be successfully resolved before litigation.

Ms. Meny has also represented individuals in numerous internal corporate investigations, and governmental agency investigations involving the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice.

Cases of Note

Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc.: We represent technology company Lyft, which connects individuals in need of a ride to drivers willing to transport them. This putative class action addresses an issue critical to the new economy: whether Lyft drivers have been misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees. The court is set to address class certification at the end of 2015.

Former Employee v. Netflix, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc.: We defended Netflix and several of its senior executives from a high-profile defamation and blacklisting lawsuit. The plaintiff departed Netflix for Amazon, and later claimed that Netflix retaliated against him by making defamatory statements about him, wrongfully accusing him of taking confidential information, and inducing Amazon to fire him. We filed an early special motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint against the Netflix defendants pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, explaining why the plaintiff’s claims against the Netflix defendants were entirely premised on protected and privileged speech and did not establish a viable claim. The court granted our anti-SLAPP motion in its entirety, dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims against the Netflix defendants only 5 ½ months after the complaint was filed.

Suffolk Technologies LLC v. AOL Inc. and Google Inc.: A Virginia federal judge granted our motion for summary judgment on all but one of Suffolk’s patent infringement claims, and issued a Daubert ruling striking the plaintiff’s expert damages opinion in its entirety. Soon after, Suffolk stipulated to invalidity on the last remaining claim. Suffolk had claimed that Google’s Adsense advertising placement technology, which selectively places paid advertisements for a company’s product or service on the Web page of another, used a similar protocol to the one under patent with Suffolk.

Taxi Company v. Ride-Sharing Company: We defended a popular ride-sharing company in this unfair competition case. Prior to the hearing on the first motion, we convinced the plaintiffs to dismiss our client from the complaint.

Microsoft Corporation v. Google Inc.: We defended Google in numerous state and federal court actions alleging trade secret misappropriation. The litigation began when our client left Microsoft Corporation to head Google’s China operations. We litigated the case through the preliminary injunction stage and resolved it on favorable terms.

Plaintiff v. Investment Funds: We achieved an early resolution of numerous state and federal court actions for a venture fund company and one of its partners. Our clients faced trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, and breach of contract claims in both state court and in federal court. We were able to remove the state court action to federal court, and then secure an early settlement for our clients.

Plaintiffs v. Real Estate Investors: We defended certain real estate investors against alter ego claims, in both state and federal court. These alter ego claims were brought in an effort to hold our clients personally liable for a $7.5 million judgment against their company and to pierce the corporate veil protecting our client's real estate investment firm. Following a multi-week bench trial, the court entered judgment for our clients and awarded them attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs v. Automobile Manufacturers: We defended automakers in multi-forum, antitrust litigation involving restrictions on car exports in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Plaintiffs, alleging a broad conspiracy among all major automobile manufacturers and distributors, sought damages of more than $1 billion. We won summary judgment in the lead federal litigation, in several state cases, and in the California state court class action. We also achieved early dismissal of numerous state court actions.

Private School System v. Northern California County: We defended a California county and certain of its Supervisors against claims that its land use decision regarding a Christian school violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and aspects of the US Constitution. After a multi-week trial in federal court, a jury resolved the case in our client’s favor, denying the school system's request for tens of millions in damages. The plaintiff appealed, but withdrew their appeal after receiving our appellate brief.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Telecommunications Company: On behalf of a special committee of our client's board of directors, we conducted an international investigation into alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA.) We made a determination as to whether any FCPA violations occurred and handled the resolution of related governmental investigations and claims.

Henderson v. Petersen et al: We represented a prisoner in a civil rights suit against three correctional officers who beat him in Pelican Bay State Prison and one officer who failed to intervene to stop the beating. After the plaintiff's case survived summary judgment, the federal court asked us to step in and represent him at trial. Following a five-day trial and five hours of jury deliberation, Defendants settled the case for nearly twice the number the plaintiff presented to the jury.

Awards and Honors

  • Top Labor & Employment AttorneyDaily Journal, 2015 
  • Top Defense Verdicts, Daily Journal, 2008. John Keker and Rachael Meny cited for successfully defending the County of Alameda against a claim for $30 million in damages and injunctive relief.
  • Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent in Commercial Litigation, Securities Law, and Bar Register of Preeminent Women Lawyers  
  • Northern California Super Lawyer, Securities Litigation, 2006
  • Co-President, Women Law Students Association, University of Michigan Law School
  • Phi Beta Kappa, Mills College

Professional Affiliations

  • Member, Women in Securities
  • Board member and Development Committee member, Employment Law Center
  • Board member, the Family Violence Appellate Project
  • Member, California Women Lawyers
  • Member, California Women Lawyers' Foundation Committee
  • Member, ABA White Collar Crime Section and ABA Litigation Section
  • High school mock trial coach
  • Former board member, Mills College Alumnae Association Board of Governors, 2002-2005

Publications and Speaking Engagements

  • "Strategies for Minimizing Risk of Privacy Class Actions," Today's General Counsel, 2014
  • "Updates on Non-Competes and Employee Issues," in-house client presentation, 2014
  • "What Makes a Good Case?" Bridgeport's Class Action Litigation & Management Conference, 2013
  • "When Key Employees Go to Competitors," The Recorder, 2011
  • “Defending Securities Class Actions,” ALI-ABA, 1997
  • “The Securities Litigation Landscape - Three Years Into The Reform Act Era,” 1999

Former Employee v. Netflix, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc.: We defended Netflix and several of its senior executives from a high-profile defamation and blacklisting lawsuit. The plaintiff departed Netflix for Amazon, and later claimed that Netflix retaliated against him by making defamatory statements about him, wrongfully accusing him of taking confidential information, and inducing Amazon to fire him. We filed an early special motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint against the Netflix defendants pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, explaining why the plaintiff’s claims against the Netflix defendants were entirely premised on protected and privileged speech and did not establish a viable claim. The court granted our anti-SLAPP motion in its entirety, dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims against the Netflix defendants only 5 ½ months after the complaint was filed.

Microsoft Corporation v. Google Inc.: We defended Google in numerous state and federal court actions alleging trade secret misappropriation. The litigation began when our client left Microsoft Corporation to head Google’s China operations. We litigated the case through the preliminary injunction stage and resolved it on favorable terms.

Taxi Company v. Ride-Sharing Company: We defended a popular ride-sharing company in this unfair competition case. Prior to the hearing on the first motion, we convinced the plaintiffs to dismiss our client from the complaint.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Telecommunications Company: On behalf of a special committee of our client's board of directors, we conducted an international investigation into alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA.) We made a determination as to whether any FCPA violations occurred and handled the resolution of related governmental investigations and claims.

Developed by Tenrec