Michael Z. Hermalyn et al v. DraftKings, Inc.

Track this case

Case Number:



California Central

Nature of Suit:

Contract: Other


Mark C. Scarsi



Sectors & Industries:

  1. April 12, 2024

    Off The Bench: Ohtani 'Victim' In Theft, Arbitration Nod To NFL

    In this week's Off The Bench, Shohei Ohtani looks to get off the hook on sports-betting allegations while his former interpreter faces charges, the NFL wins a critical court victory in the Brian Flores lawsuit, and troubled WWE founder Vince McMahon cuts even more financial ties with the company.

  2. April 09, 2024

    Ex-DraftKings Exec Loses Bid For $310K In Atty Fees

    A California federal judge will not award the $310,000 in attorney fees a former DraftKings executive claims it cost to handle the ping-ponging of his lawsuit between federal and state court, ruling the removal at the behest of his ex-employer was "suspect" but not unreasonable.

  3. February 22, 2024

    DraftKings Says Ex-Exec's $310K Attys Fees Bid Is Excessive

    DraftKings has told a California federal court that the "whopping" $310,000 in attorney fees requested by a former executive after the company shuffled the case back and forth between state and federal court is an unreasonable fee no "reasonable client" would pay.

  4. February 13, 2024

    Ex-DraftKings Exec's Attys Seek $310K For Court Pingpong

    Lawyers for a former DraftKings Inc. executive who recently defected to rival Fanatics are seeking more than $310,000 in attorney fees, arguing the amount is reasonable and would cover their work for two "objectively unreasonable" removals of the case to federal court by DraftKings, behavior they called "disturbing litigation conduct."

  5. February 07, 2024

    DraftKings Fight With Ex-Exec Intensifies Amid Dueling Filings

    DraftKings is arguing that one of its former executives who left to join rival Fanatics must have his lawsuit over noncompete agreements heard in California federal court, not state court, saying he went to great lengths to defraud the court into thinking diversity jurisdiction doesn't apply.