Elizabeth Pipkin

A veteran litigator, Pipkin practices business, government and civil rights law. She said the coronavirus pandemic hasn’t much cut down on her docket.

“I thought it would slow more than it has, but the diverse set of practices we have here has kept us busy.”

When cases go long, she stays focused. For more than 10 years Pipkin has served as lead trial counsel in a battle with the federal government over the placement on its no-fly list of Stanford University doctoral candidate Rahinah Ibrahim, a Malaysian citizen. Since the day in 2004 when FBI agents first interviewed her at her campus apartment, through her arrest at San Francisco International Airport, Ibrahim has contested her inclusion on the list. Represented by Pipkin, she became the first to successfully sue over the issue. Ibrahim v. U.S Department of Homeland Security, 3:06-cv-00545 (N.D. Cal., filed Jan. 27, 2006); 14-16161 (9th Cir., en banc opinion filed Jan. 2, 2019).

“She’s a successful entrepreneur in construction planning in Malaysia,” Pipkin said. “She’d still like to come back the the U.S., and we’re still helpful to see her here someday.”

An en banc panel at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government did not act in good faith in mistakenly placing her on the list due to a bureaucratic blunder. It ordered the matter back for reconsideration of attorney fees by U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco. A hearing on the issue, including Pipkin and her firm’s $4 million fee request, is set for Dec. 17, 2020.

In a more recent case, Pipkin represented online payments and marketing platform RiverPay Inc. in trade secrets litigation. Plaintiff Citcon USA LLC alleged that its former head of operations and product left the company and stole source code, technical information and other devices containing confidential information for use by its rival. Citcon sought more than $20 million in damages. Citcon USA LLC v. RiverPay Inc., 5:18-cv-02585 (N.D. Cal., filed May 2, 2018).

In an eight-day trial, Pipkin succeeded in obtaining favorable verdicts for the two individual defendants and—though the jury found for the plaintiff—a $1.5 million damages award. It was far less, she pointed out, than the plaintiff’s demand had been. “I’m proud of that case because it was hard-fought throughout and we took it from discovery through trial,” she said. “Trade secrets cases can be difficult. There are a lot of technical concepts that jurors aren’t really familiar with. Our opening was crucial, because we focused on a few simple main points, and that served to establish our credibility. And we were glad the judge declined to award punitives.”

— John Roemer