Monster Energy Company is asking a California federal court to disqualify attorneys at Quarles & Brady LLP from representing Bang maker Vital Pharmaceuticals (VPX) in the brands’ ongoing legal battle due to the firm having previously served as legal counsel to Monster.
In a motion filed on Monday, lawyers for Corona, Calif.-based Monster argued that Quarles & Brady and firm partner Daniel M. Janssen had represented Monster in legal arbitration with several beverage distributors between 2015 and 2017, with Monster billed over $800,000 for the firms’ services during that time, according to a report by Law360. Janssen himself billed Monster for nearly 900 hours of work, the motion claims.
According to the motion, VPX recently hired Quarles & Brady to represent the company as the defendant in its false advertising lawsuit with Monster, filed in 2018 and set to go to trial on April 5. The firm notified the court it would represent VPX on January 4. The motion claims that Quarles & Brady was initially announced as co-counsel set to work alongside attorneys from Gordon & Rees, which has represented VPX in the case since February 2019. However,shortly thereafter VPX announced that Quarles & Brady would take over as lead counsel.
Monster claims that hiring Quarles & Brady presents a significant problem as the company had shared confidential information related to its distribution strategy with the firm during arbitration proceedings.
“Monster, by necessity, communicated its privileged and confidential strategies and information to Quarles to assist in their representation of Monster in the Distributor Arbitrations,” the motion stated. “This privileged and confidential information concerned the obligations of Monster’s outside distributors, which include: selling Monster energy drinks through optimal shelf space placement and complying with contractual obligations to keep confidential the proprietary and confidential business information Monster shared with them.
“Despite their possession of this privileged and confidential information, neither Quarles nor Mr. Janssen contacted Monster for consent to represent Defendants in this case, which involves shelf space interference and misappropriation of Monster’s proprietary and confidential business information,” the motion noted.
This isn’t the first time that Monster and Bang have clashed over their respective legal counsels. Monster had one of its attorneys removed from the case in December 2018, when Marc P. Miles was disqualified from representing the energy drink brand after it was noted that he had represented VPX for two weeks in a 2010 false advertising lawsuit filed against Monster’s former parent company Hansen Beverage Company. VPX later won a partial summary judgment in that dispute.
Monster is currently represented in the case by California-based law firm Hueston Hennigan LLP.
The original complaint filed by Monster accuses VPX of making false health claims about the potential benefits of Bang, including alleged statements from the company and its founder and CEO Jack Owoc suggesting the drink could treat chronic diseases including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Hungtinton’s disease. VPX has denied the claims.
The lawsuit is just one of several past and present legal disputes between the two companies. In addition to the 2010 false advertising and unfair competition lawsuit, a federal judge in Florida ruled against VPX last year in the trade dress infringement case it filed against Monster in 2019. That complaint claimed that the Reign Total Body Fuel line infringed on Bang’s label design and represented unfair competition, but a court found that neither brand’s visual identity was distinct enough to qualify as infringement. VPX has since appealed the ruling.
BevNET has reached out to Monster and VPX for comment and will update this story accordingly.