Toyota: Litigation Update Regarding Dimitrios Biller exemployee keeps trying to sue
10-07-09, 03:06 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Toyota: Litigation Update Regarding Dimitrios Biller exemployee keeps trying to sue
I find it funny the media clearly missed this big fact. The anti Toyota hate is strong.....
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/l...os-109850.aspx
I strongly recommend maybe looking at all angles before posting an old article.
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/l...os-109850.aspx
Litigation Update Regarding Dimitrios Biller
TORRANCE, Calif. (Oct. 5, 2009) – On Friday, September 25, the California Superior Court for the Country of Los Angeles issued two significant rulings in connection with litigation involving former Toyota attorney Dimitrios Biller. Citing his efforts to disclose confidential Toyota information for “personal financial gain”, the Court issued a preliminary injunction against Mr. Biller, converting the temporary restraining order that was already in place. The Court also took the highly unusual step of requesting that the California State Bar investigate Mr. Biller’s alleged violations of attorney-client privilege, which could lead to his disbarment.
These actions are related to a November 2008 Toyota lawsuit against Mr. Biller to stop his use of Toyota case studies and other confidential or proprietary information in seminars and on the website of his legal education business, in clear violation of confidentiality agreements and attorney-client privilege. He has continued to disclose this information in defiance of the restraining order that Toyota obtained against him. In addition, Mr. Biller filed a lawsuit in federal court in July in which he disclosed additional confidential information and made false claims against Toyota regarding the conduct of product liability cases.
With respect to the California Superior Court’s actions, Toyota said:
“We wish to underscore that Mr. Biller’s allegations based on these disclosures are both misleading and inaccurate, and hope that today’s rulings will help prevent Mr. Biller from continuing his false accusations against Toyota. We maintain the highest professional and ethical standards in our legal practices and remain confident that we have acted appropriately in product liability cases and in all reporting to federal safety regulators.”
With respect to Mr. Biller’s overall campaign against Toyota and related litigation, the company reiterated:
“Recent lawsuits filed against Toyota by Dimitrios Biller and others are based on inaccurate and misleading allegations made by Mr. Biller. As our court papers in the Biller case make clear, we strongly dispute his unfounded claims. After careful review of these allegations, we are confident that we have acted appropriately with respect to product liability litigation. We intend to defend against his claims and similar suits vigorously.
“Contrary to Mr. Biller’s allegations, Toyota vehicles are carefully and rigorously tested, and are all engineered to meet or exceed the high standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is the global leader in motor vehicle safety. Among the many inaccuracies in his lawsuit, Mr. Biller has grossly mischaracterized Toyota’s reporting to NHTSA. His accusations that Toyota misled NHTSA regarding roof strength standards are completely false. Contrary to his claims, there has never been any question about the completeness and accuracy of the roof strength information we have provided to product safety regulators.
“The facts of the NHTSA situation cited by Mr. Biller are as follows. NHTSA has sought public comment on roof strength at various times over the past decade. In August of 2005, NHTSA announced proposed changes to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 216 and requested voluntary comments from interested parties. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed comments with NHTSA on behalf of its carmaker members, which then included General Motors, Ford Motor Company, DaimlerChrysler, BMW Group, Volkswagen, Porsche, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors and Toyota. Several manufacturers also submitted comments individually.
“On November 21, 2005, Toyota filed a comment addressing certain aspects of the proposed revision to FMVSS 216. Toyota’s comments were a realistic assessment of the structural changes and timetable required to comply with the proposed rules, and they were consistent with comments made by other manufacturers, as well as the Alliance.
[NOTE: Toyota’s initial comments regarding Mr. Biller’s allegations included an incorrect statement regarding Toyota’s comments directly to NHTSA. This oversight does not change the essential facts: that Toyota did not mislead NHTSA, did not hire an outside consultant to prepare an engineering report, did not hire a second outside consultant to change a prior engineering report, and that Mr. Biller’s allegations are unfounded.]
“In this rulemaking proceeding, as in all rulemaking proceedings, NHTSA ultimately performed its own independent analysis in deciding on the content of new safety standards, including the stringency level and the lead time required for compliance.
“Mr. Biller also exaggerates the incidence of roll-over litigation involving Toyota vehicles. In fact, Toyota vehicles have an excellent safety record relative to the millions of cars on the road. While a roll-over accident can be severe, with 27 million Toyota vehicles currently in operation, roll-overs are a rare event.
“Mr. Biller's actions and the timing of his lawsuit do not support his claim that he is motivated by the public interest. Rather, as a California judge recently found, his actions are driven to advance his own personal financial interests. Biller did not resign from Toyota because of ethics concerns. In making his demand for a severance package he held open his option to return to work at Toyota as an attorney. He was fully responsible for managing the cases cited in his lawsuit but he did not take any action at the time that would be consistent with his concerns.
“Mr. Biller has a history of suing his former employers, as well as attorneys who represented him, accusing them of conspiracy against him. Biller was terminated from his position with the Los Angeles District Attorney (LADA) and subsequently sued the LADA (case 2:09-cv-03079-GHK-RZ) for $50 million on the grounds that his colleagues were conspiring to have him fired. He has also sued the attorney who represented him against Toyota (Los Angeles Superior Court, Santa Monica Division, Biller vs. Faber). In court papers related to these suits, Mr. Biller claims he is disabled and has suffered from organic brain disease “for most of his life.”
“Toyota’s lawsuit against Mr. Biller in California Superior Court and its related restraining order have nothing to do with his false claims regarding the conduct of product liability cases and Mr. Biller cannot claim that Toyota ever sued him to stop the disclosures he is making now.
“Toyota agreed to a severance package for Mr. Biller in order to avoid the time and expense associated with his unsubstantiated allegations. Such agreements are not unusual in cases of highly compensated individuals who have had access to confidential and proprietary information. Toyota acted honorably in seeking a mutually acceptable separation, but ultimately it was a mistake because Biller did not honor his agreement.
“We are disappointed that Mr. Biller has elected to file his lawsuit in an attempt to avoid what we believe are his obligations as an attorney formerly employed by Toyota. In our view and in the view of a judge, Mr. Biller has repeatedly breached his ethical and professional obligations as an attorney and in his commitments to us, by violating attorney-client privilege without legitimate cause.”
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/l...os-109850.aspx
I strongly recommend maybe looking at all angles before posting an old article.
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/l...os-109850.aspx
Litigation Update Regarding Dimitrios Biller
TORRANCE, Calif. (Oct. 5, 2009) – On Friday, September 25, the California Superior Court for the Country of Los Angeles issued two significant rulings in connection with litigation involving former Toyota attorney Dimitrios Biller. Citing his efforts to disclose confidential Toyota information for “personal financial gain”, the Court issued a preliminary injunction against Mr. Biller, converting the temporary restraining order that was already in place. The Court also took the highly unusual step of requesting that the California State Bar investigate Mr. Biller’s alleged violations of attorney-client privilege, which could lead to his disbarment.
These actions are related to a November 2008 Toyota lawsuit against Mr. Biller to stop his use of Toyota case studies and other confidential or proprietary information in seminars and on the website of his legal education business, in clear violation of confidentiality agreements and attorney-client privilege. He has continued to disclose this information in defiance of the restraining order that Toyota obtained against him. In addition, Mr. Biller filed a lawsuit in federal court in July in which he disclosed additional confidential information and made false claims against Toyota regarding the conduct of product liability cases.
With respect to the California Superior Court’s actions, Toyota said:
“We wish to underscore that Mr. Biller’s allegations based on these disclosures are both misleading and inaccurate, and hope that today’s rulings will help prevent Mr. Biller from continuing his false accusations against Toyota. We maintain the highest professional and ethical standards in our legal practices and remain confident that we have acted appropriately in product liability cases and in all reporting to federal safety regulators.”
With respect to Mr. Biller’s overall campaign against Toyota and related litigation, the company reiterated:
“Recent lawsuits filed against Toyota by Dimitrios Biller and others are based on inaccurate and misleading allegations made by Mr. Biller. As our court papers in the Biller case make clear, we strongly dispute his unfounded claims. After careful review of these allegations, we are confident that we have acted appropriately with respect to product liability litigation. We intend to defend against his claims and similar suits vigorously.
“Contrary to Mr. Biller’s allegations, Toyota vehicles are carefully and rigorously tested, and are all engineered to meet or exceed the high standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is the global leader in motor vehicle safety. Among the many inaccuracies in his lawsuit, Mr. Biller has grossly mischaracterized Toyota’s reporting to NHTSA. His accusations that Toyota misled NHTSA regarding roof strength standards are completely false. Contrary to his claims, there has never been any question about the completeness and accuracy of the roof strength information we have provided to product safety regulators.
“The facts of the NHTSA situation cited by Mr. Biller are as follows. NHTSA has sought public comment on roof strength at various times over the past decade. In August of 2005, NHTSA announced proposed changes to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 216 and requested voluntary comments from interested parties. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed comments with NHTSA on behalf of its carmaker members, which then included General Motors, Ford Motor Company, DaimlerChrysler, BMW Group, Volkswagen, Porsche, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors and Toyota. Several manufacturers also submitted comments individually.
“On November 21, 2005, Toyota filed a comment addressing certain aspects of the proposed revision to FMVSS 216. Toyota’s comments were a realistic assessment of the structural changes and timetable required to comply with the proposed rules, and they were consistent with comments made by other manufacturers, as well as the Alliance.
[NOTE: Toyota’s initial comments regarding Mr. Biller’s allegations included an incorrect statement regarding Toyota’s comments directly to NHTSA. This oversight does not change the essential facts: that Toyota did not mislead NHTSA, did not hire an outside consultant to prepare an engineering report, did not hire a second outside consultant to change a prior engineering report, and that Mr. Biller’s allegations are unfounded.]
“In this rulemaking proceeding, as in all rulemaking proceedings, NHTSA ultimately performed its own independent analysis in deciding on the content of new safety standards, including the stringency level and the lead time required for compliance.
“Mr. Biller also exaggerates the incidence of roll-over litigation involving Toyota vehicles. In fact, Toyota vehicles have an excellent safety record relative to the millions of cars on the road. While a roll-over accident can be severe, with 27 million Toyota vehicles currently in operation, roll-overs are a rare event.
“Mr. Biller's actions and the timing of his lawsuit do not support his claim that he is motivated by the public interest. Rather, as a California judge recently found, his actions are driven to advance his own personal financial interests. Biller did not resign from Toyota because of ethics concerns. In making his demand for a severance package he held open his option to return to work at Toyota as an attorney. He was fully responsible for managing the cases cited in his lawsuit but he did not take any action at the time that would be consistent with his concerns.
“Mr. Biller has a history of suing his former employers, as well as attorneys who represented him, accusing them of conspiracy against him. Biller was terminated from his position with the Los Angeles District Attorney (LADA) and subsequently sued the LADA (case 2:09-cv-03079-GHK-RZ) for $50 million on the grounds that his colleagues were conspiring to have him fired. He has also sued the attorney who represented him against Toyota (Los Angeles Superior Court, Santa Monica Division, Biller vs. Faber). In court papers related to these suits, Mr. Biller claims he is disabled and has suffered from organic brain disease “for most of his life.”
“Toyota’s lawsuit against Mr. Biller in California Superior Court and its related restraining order have nothing to do with his false claims regarding the conduct of product liability cases and Mr. Biller cannot claim that Toyota ever sued him to stop the disclosures he is making now.
“Toyota agreed to a severance package for Mr. Biller in order to avoid the time and expense associated with his unsubstantiated allegations. Such agreements are not unusual in cases of highly compensated individuals who have had access to confidential and proprietary information. Toyota acted honorably in seeking a mutually acceptable separation, but ultimately it was a mistake because Biller did not honor his agreement.
“We are disappointed that Mr. Biller has elected to file his lawsuit in an attempt to avoid what we believe are his obligations as an attorney formerly employed by Toyota. In our view and in the view of a judge, Mr. Biller has repeatedly breached his ethical and professional obligations as an attorney and in his commitments to us, by violating attorney-client privilege without legitimate cause.”
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
