Mabvax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. v. Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP — Entry #134: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE(S) by MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc
Case: Mabvax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. v. Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP casd · 3:18-cv-02494
filed October 30, 2018
What this document is
Docket entry #134 · filed June 16, 2020
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE(S) by MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. of case(s) 3:20-cv-01084 re 133 Notice of Related Case EXHIBIT 2 TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE [DKT 133]. (Patchen, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
Who is involved
- Avital Even-Shoshan Perlman
- David B. Manno
- Does 1 through 10
- Gregory Sichenzia
- Harvey Kesner
- MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc.
- Marc Ross
- Michael Ference
- Richard J. Babnick, Jr.
- Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP
- Tara Guarneri-Ferrara
- Thomas Rose
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- Marathon Digital: its former name “Marathon Patent Group, Inc.” appears in a filing in this case.
…including the following examples: Marathon Patent Group, Inc., Majesco Entertainment Co., Function(x)…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved November 08, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
5 page(s), 12,898 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB
Case 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB Document
Document 134
114 Filed
Filed 06/16/20
01/29/20 PageID.3186
PageID.2982 Page
Page 1
1 of
of 5
5
Jason M. Leviton (pro hac vice)
Joel A. Fleming (CA Bar No. 281264)
1 Jacob A. Walker (CA Bar No. 271217)
2 Lauren Godles Milgroom (pro hac vice)
Amanda R. Crawford (pro hac vice)
3 BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
4 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
5 (t) (617) 398-5600
6 (f) (617) 507-6020
jason@blockesq.com
7 joel@blockesq.com
8 jake@blockesq.com
amanda@blockesq.com
9 lauren@blockesq.com
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc.
11 [Additional counsel appear on signature page.]
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15 MABVAX THERAPEUTICS Case No. 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB
HOLDINGS, INC.,
16 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
Plaintiff,
17
vs.
18
SICHENZIA ROSS FERENCE LLP
19 (f/k/a SICHENZIA ROSS FERENCE
KESNER LLP; f/k/a SICHENZIA
20 ROSS FRIEDMAN FERENCE LLP),
HARVEY KESNER, and DOES 1
21 through 10, inclusive,
22 Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB
Case 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB
Case 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB Document
Document 134
114 Filed
Filed 06/16/20
01/29/20 PageID.3187
PageID.2983 Page
Page 2
2 of
of 5
5
1
On January 22, 2020, Defendant Kesner filed an action in the United States
2 District Court for the Southern District of New York, Kesner v. Baker Botts, LLP
3
[sic1], et al., No. 1:20-cv-551 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Kesner RICO Action”). The Kesner
4
5 RICO Action asserts, inter alia, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
6 Organizations Act against Baker Botts L.L.P. and a Baker Botts partner who
7
represented Plaintiff MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. (“MabVax”) in connection
8
9 with the SEC investigation and are representing MabVax in the related action pending
10 in California state court.2
11
The gravamen of the Kesner RICO Action is Kesner’s (factually false and
12
3
13 legally invalid) assertion that, in August 2018, Baker Botts unlawfully attempted to
14 extort a settlement from Kesner by sending to Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP (“SRF”),4
15
on behalf of MabVax, a “draft complaint” that was substantially similar to that filed
16
17 by MabVax in September 2018, which was sustained by Judge Hayes in this action.
18 Compare Kesner RICO Action, ECF No. 3 ¶¶1-6 with Malin v. Singer, 217 Cal. App.
19
20
1
The law firm’s name is Baker Botts L.L.P.
21
2
MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. v. Honig, et al., 37-2019-00018398-CU-SL-
22
CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct.)
23 3
The Kesner RICO Action also alleges, in one paragraph, that undersigned counsel
24 were unwitting dupes who were “fed [a] trove of lies by … Baker Botts …
to unlawfully threaten plaintiff” (id. ¶69) and, then, in the next paragraph, that
25 undersigned counsel—along with the Delaware firm acting as MabVax’s bankruptcy
26 counsel—were active “co-conspirators … who joined with Baker Botts extending the
enterprise into the Chapter 11 proceedings.” Id. ¶70.
27
4
At the time, Sichenzia Ross Ference Kesner LLP.
28
2 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
Case 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB
Case 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB Document
Document 134
114 Filed
Filed 06/16/20
01/29/20 PageID.3188
PageID.2984 Page
Page 3
3 of
of 5
5
1
4th 1283, 1293 (2013) (“Ordinarily, a demand letter sent in anticipation of litigation
2 is a legitimate speech or petitioning activity that is protected under” California’s anti-
3
SLAPP statute).5
4
5 Although Kesner has argued in this Court that documents relating to his
6 departure from SRF are irrelevant,6 Kesner alleges in the Kesner RICO Action that
7
he “lost his partnership and employment ” with SRF as “a direct and proximate
8
9 result” of the draft allegations made on behalf of MabVax that were sent to SRF by
10 Baker Botts. Kesner RICO Action, ECF No. 3 ¶4.
11
Kesner’s counsel were obliged by rule to promptly disclose the Kesner RICO
12
13 Action to this Court and to MabVax. Specifically, Local Rule 40.1(f) provides that:
14 Whenever counsel has reason to believe that a pending action or
15 proceeding on file or about to be filed is related to another pending
action or proceeding on file in this or any other federal or state court
16 (whether pending, dismissed, or otherwise terminated), counsel must
17 promptly file and serve on all known parties to each related action or
proceeding a notice of related case, stating the title, number and filing
18 date of each action or proceeding believed to be related, together with
19 a brief statement of their relationship and the reasons why assignment
to a single district judge is or is not likely to effect a saving of judicial
20
21
5
22 Kesner is represented, in the Kesner RICO Action, by Steven S. Biss, a lawyer with
a history of filing frivolous strategic lawsuits against public participation, including,
23 infamously, a suit filed on behalf of Congressman Devin Nunes against, inter alia, a
24 parody Twitter account that pretended to be a cow owned by the Congressman. See
Nunes v. Devin Nunes’ Cow [@DevinCow], et al., CL19-1715-00 (Va. Cir. Ct.)
25 (asserting claims for defamation based on statements including, “Nunes is a
26 ‘treasonous cowpoke’” and “Devin’s boots are full of manure. He’s udder-ly
worthless and its pasture time to move him to prison”).
27
6
See e.g., ECF No. 113 at 8.
28
3 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
Case 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB
Case 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB Document
Document 134
114 Filed
Filed 06/16/20
01/29/20 PageID.3189
PageID.2985 Page
Page 4
4 of
of 5
5
1
effort and other economies. … This is a continuing duty that applies
not only when counsel files a case with knowledge of a related action
2 or proceeding but also applies after the date of filing whenever counsel
3 learns of a related action or proceeding.
4 Kesner and his counsel have failed to comply with this rule.7 So MabVax is
5
filing this notice and states that if the United States District Court for the Southern
6
District of New York transfers the Kesner RICO Action to this district, it would effect
7
8 a significant savings of judicial effort and other economies to assign the Kesner RICO
9
Action to Judge Hayes and Magistrate Judge Berg. There is nearly a complete factual
10
overlap between the two cases8 and Judge Hayes and Magistrate Judge Berg have
11
12 both devoted significant time to this action and are familiar with the underlying facts.
13
Dated: January 29, 2020 BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
14
By: /s/ Joel A. Fleming
15 Jason M. Leviton (pro hac vice)
Joel A. Fleming (CA Bar No. 281264)
16
Jacob A. Walker (CA Bar No. 271217)
17 Lauren Godles Milgroom (pro hac vice)
Amanda Crawford (pro hac vice)
18
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
19 Boston, MA 02110
(t) (617) 398-5600
20
(f) (617) 507-6020
21 jason@blockesq.com
joel@blockesq.com
22
jake@blockesq.com
23
24
7
Kesner’s counsel in this action have represented to MabVax that they were
25 unaware of the Kesner RICO Action until after it was filed. But they should have
26 filed a notice of related case as soon as they became aware of the action.
8
27 Kesner is essentially bringing a counterclaim but is attempting to do so in New
York despite this Court denying his motion to transfer to that District. ECF No. 36.
28
4 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
Case 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB
Case 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB Document
Document 134
114 Filed
Filed 06/16/20
01/29/20 PageID.3190
PageID.2986 Page
Page 5
5 of
of 5
5
1
lauren@blockesq.com
amanda@blockesq.com
2
3 Attorneys for Plaintiff MabVax
Therapeutics Holdings, Inc.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE