FOLLOW US

Florida Federal Judge Rules Material Facts Still in Dispute in Defamation Case Involving Patent Exec and Baker Botts Attorney

Miami, FL – [Date] – In a recent ruling, U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles determined that it is too early to rule in favor of patent licensing executive Leigh M. Rothschild in his defamation lawsuit against Baker Botts LLP attorney Rachael Lamkin. Rothschild, along with his company, Analytical Technologies LLC, is accusing Lamkin of making defamatory statements that have harmed his reputation.

Judge Gayles denied Rothschild’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, citing that material facts remain in dispute. The case stems from a Bloomberg Law article in which Lamkin allegedly stated, "With Leigh Rothschild, we never get the money because the shells go bankrupt." Rothschild's lawsuit claims these statements are false and have caused damage to his personal and professional standing.

In the short order posted to the case docket, Judge Gayles emphasized that there are unresolved issues regarding whether Lamkin’s statements were false and whether Rothschild and Analytical Technologies LLC have sufficiently proven the other necessary elements for their defamation claim. As a result, the case will proceed with further examination.

The judge also rejected Lamkin’s request to dismiss an abuse of process counterclaim filed by her in response to the lawsuit. Judge Gayles found that Lamkin had adequately alleged the counterclaim, allowing it to move forward in the litigation.

"The issues raised by plaintiffs may be appropriately addressed at summary judgment," Judge Gayles stated.

This lawsuit arises from a separate patent dispute in which Analytical Technologies is suing Starbucks Corp. over alleged patent infringement. Lamkin, who was representing Starbucks in the case, is accused by Rothschild of defamation, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with business relationships.

Rothschild’s legal team has strongly disputed Lamkin’s statements, asserting that his businesses are not bankrupt "shells" and that he has never filed for bankruptcy. They contend that Lamkin's remarks were defamatory and have severely impacted Rothschild’s reputation in the industry.

Starbucks, a key party in the case, settled with Rothschild earlier this year, exiting the defamation lawsuit. Lamkin, however, remains a defendant and has filed a counterclaim against Rothschild, accusing him of "sham litigation" and claiming Rothschild made threats during a deposition exchange.

Rothschild's legal representatives argue that Lamkin’s counterclaim is "implausible" and based on unfounded conjecture. They also deny that Rothschild ever threatened Lamkin and state that their settlement with Starbucks is unrelated to the proceedings against Lamkin.

Lamkin’s defense team maintains that her statements were made in the course of her professional duties and were part of her defense against what she believes to be meritless patent claims.

The defamation case remains ongoing, with Rothschild’s legal team continuing to push for a ruling in his favor. Both parties await further developments as the case moves toward summary judgment.