{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"105","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"B","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":442365,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e","slug":"bruce-baber","email":"bbaber@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-917-749-1247","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":17}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baber","nick_name":"Bruce","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Bruce","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"W.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebaber/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","searchable_text":"Baber{{ FIELD }}Bruce Baber focuses his practice in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.\nBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\nBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\nFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by Chambers USA. He has also been listed in multiple editions of The Best Lawyers in America, The Legal 500, The World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World’s Leading Trademark Professionals, The International Who’s Who of Trademark Lawyers, numerous Super Lawyer lists and other leading industry publications.\nA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\n \nAdmitted only in Georgia. Bruce W Baber Partner Princeton University  Duke University Duke University School of Law Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Best Lawyers In America.","searchable_name":"Bruce W. Baber","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445229,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":639,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRay represents private equity and hedge funds, and counsels corporations, in merger and acquisition transactions, financings and related matters.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Baltz is a senior partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Corporate, Finance and Investment Group and the former head of the Global Corporate Department.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Baltz has extensive experience representing private equity and hedge funds in a wide variety of matters. Mr. Baltz has handled private equity buyouts totaling over $30\u0026nbsp;billion in the past several years.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Baltz is an adept business lawyer who is especially skilled at structuring private equity acquisitions and investments involving middle-market companies and executing leveraged buyouts on behalf of institutional buy-side clients.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Baltz also is a member of the Southeast chapter of the Business Executives for National Security (BENS), and a former member of the Boards of Directors of Big Brothers Big Sisters and Buckhead Baseball.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey Clients:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArcapita\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAssured Investment Management\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrookfield Asset Management\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEagle Merchant Partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLevel 5 Capital Partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNorthlane Capital Partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePower Sustainable Lios\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRed Dog Equity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoark Capital\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSlate Asset Management\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource Capital\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"raymond-baltz","email":"rbaltz@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 23, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Power Sustainable Lios on its acquisition of Crofters Food.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 12, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Slate Asset Management on its acquisition of Cold-Link Logistics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 10, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of MBA Mission USA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 26, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of Reach Cambridge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 24, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisitions of EnviroSmart Sumter Solidification and High Pressure Investments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 5, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Guidewell Education.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 2, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Red Dog Equity on its sale of Superio USA Waste to GFL Environmental.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 9, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Empower Community Care to NexPhase Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 1, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of C\u0026amp;K Paving Contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 1, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of The Difference Card to Stone Point Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFebruary 27, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Strategic Claim Consultants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJanuary 16, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Plus Delta Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 12, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Stellar Public Adjusting Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 11, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Sam the Concrete Man.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 5, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of KidKraft in a Chapter 11 process.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 1, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of BrandMuscle Holdings to Truelink Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 27, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of VMG Health to Incline Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFebruary 28, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AYA Medical Spa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 27, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Rotomaster to MidOcean Partners and Cloyes Gear \u0026amp; Products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 26, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Waste Harmonics to TPG and Keter Environmental Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 30, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Cardone Industries to First Brands Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 30, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita and Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services on their acquisition of Integrity Appraisal Management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 28, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northland Capital Partners and VMG Health on their acquisition of the assets of BSM Financial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 28, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Impact Home Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 31, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AmeriSpec and Furniture Medic from Roark Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 21, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Eskola Roofing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 12, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of assets from Driven Brands.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 1, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Atlantic Pipe Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 29, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Enviro-Master International Franchise.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 24, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products in its completion of a continuation fund involving Timber Bay Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 31, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 24, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Caliber Car Wash to Percheon Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 21, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Recreational Group to Sentinel Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 15, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Impact Auto.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 24, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Illinois.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 17, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAugust 19, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Utah.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 19, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of One Plus Systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 30, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Stratus Unlimited to Vestar Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 1, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of The Difference Card.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 30, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Red Dog Equity on its acquisition of PureMagic Carwash.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 29, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Empower Community Care.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJanuary 28, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of Yardistry Limited.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 24, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on is sale of Lone Star Overnight to WeDo Logistics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 11, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Code Ninjas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 17, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of VMG Health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 30, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on the sale of Planet Fitness studio franchises to American Securities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 26, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Waste Harmonics, a leading provider of waste and recycling management solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 19, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Infrastructure Group and Public Sector Pension Investment on their sale of Wind Energy Transmission Texas to Axiom Infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 27, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital on its sale of Corepower Yoga studio franchises to TSG Consumer Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 4, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Chicken Salad Chick to Brentwood Associates.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAugust 30, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Icon Investment Holdings, a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 8, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with the sale of AdaptHealth Holdings to DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. (NASDAQ: DFBH), a special purpose acquisition company sponsored by Deerfield Management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 19, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness studio franchises from affiliates of Michigan OT Partnership.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 11, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Principal Credit (\"BPC\") on a transaction which resulted in BPC acquiring 85% of the limited partnership interests of Cardone Industries, a leading aftermarket auto parts manufacturer of new and remanufactured auto parts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 15, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Science Care to Levine Leichtman Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFebruary 27, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with its investment in common equity and subordinated debt of AdaptHealth Holdings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJanuary 28, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Coastal Sign and Wayfinding, Inc., a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":42}]},"expertise":[{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":27,"guid":"27.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":26,"guid":"26.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1141,"guid":"1141.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1192,"guid":"1192.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":123,"guid":"123.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":124,"guid":"124.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1220,"guid":"1220.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baltz","nick_name":"Ray","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Raymond","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRay represents private equity and hedge funds, and counsels corporations, in merger and acquisition transactions, financings and related matters.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Baltz is a senior partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Corporate, Finance and Investment Group and the former head of the Global Corporate Department.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Baltz has extensive experience representing private equity and hedge funds in a wide variety of matters. Mr. Baltz has handled private equity buyouts totaling over $30\u0026nbsp;billion in the past several years.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Baltz is an adept business lawyer who is especially skilled at structuring private equity acquisitions and investments involving middle-market companies and executing leveraged buyouts on behalf of institutional buy-side clients.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Baltz also is a member of the Southeast chapter of the Business Executives for National Security (BENS), and a former member of the Boards of Directors of Big Brothers Big Sisters and Buckhead Baseball.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey Clients:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArcapita\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAssured Investment Management\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrookfield Asset Management\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEagle Merchant Partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLevel 5 Capital Partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNorthlane Capital Partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePower Sustainable Lios\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRed Dog Equity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoark Capital\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSlate Asset Management\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource Capital\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 23, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Power Sustainable Lios on its acquisition of Crofters Food.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 12, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Slate Asset Management on its acquisition of Cold-Link Logistics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 10, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of MBA Mission USA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 26, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of Reach Cambridge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 24, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisitions of EnviroSmart Sumter Solidification and High Pressure Investments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 5, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Guidewell Education.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 2, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Red Dog Equity on its sale of Superio USA Waste to GFL Environmental.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 9, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Empower Community Care to NexPhase Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 1, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of C\u0026amp;K Paving Contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 1, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of The Difference Card to Stone Point Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFebruary 27, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Strategic Claim Consultants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJanuary 16, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Plus Delta Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 12, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Stellar Public Adjusting Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 11, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Sam the Concrete Man.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 5, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of KidKraft in a Chapter 11 process.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 1, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of BrandMuscle Holdings to Truelink Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 27, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of VMG Health to Incline Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFebruary 28, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AYA Medical Spa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 27, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Rotomaster to MidOcean Partners and Cloyes Gear \u0026amp; Products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 26, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Waste Harmonics to TPG and Keter Environmental Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 30, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Cardone Industries to First Brands Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 30, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita and Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services on their acquisition of Integrity Appraisal Management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 28, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northland Capital Partners and VMG Health on their acquisition of the assets of BSM Financial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 28, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Impact Home Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 31, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AmeriSpec and Furniture Medic from Roark Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 21, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Eskola Roofing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 12, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of assets from Driven Brands.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 1, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Atlantic Pipe Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 29, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Enviro-Master International Franchise.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 24, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products in its completion of a continuation fund involving Timber Bay Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 31, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 24, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Caliber Car Wash to Percheon Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 21, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Recreational Group to Sentinel Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 15, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Impact Auto.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 24, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Illinois.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 17, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAugust 19, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Utah.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 19, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of One Plus Systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 30, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Stratus Unlimited to Vestar Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 1, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of The Difference Card.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 30, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Red Dog Equity on its acquisition of PureMagic Carwash.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 29, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Empower Community Care.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJanuary 28, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of Yardistry Limited.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 24, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on is sale of Lone Star Overnight to WeDo Logistics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 11, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Code Ninjas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 17, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of VMG Health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 30, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on the sale of Planet Fitness studio franchises to American Securities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 26, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Waste Harmonics, a leading provider of waste and recycling management solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 19, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Infrastructure Group and Public Sector Pension Investment on their sale of Wind Energy Transmission Texas to Axiom Infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 27, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital on its sale of Corepower Yoga studio franchises to TSG Consumer Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 4, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Chicken Salad Chick to Brentwood Associates.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAugust 30, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Icon Investment Holdings, a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 8, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with the sale of AdaptHealth Holdings to DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. (NASDAQ: DFBH), a special purpose acquisition company sponsored by Deerfield Management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 19, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness studio franchises from affiliates of Michigan OT Partnership.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 11, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Principal Credit (\"BPC\") on a transaction which resulted in BPC acquiring 85% of the limited partnership interests of Cardone Industries, a leading aftermarket auto parts manufacturer of new and remanufactured auto parts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 15, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Science Care to Levine Leichtman Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFebruary 27, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with its investment in common equity and subordinated debt of AdaptHealth Holdings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJanuary 28, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Coastal Sign and Wayfinding, Inc., a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11849}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2026-01-23T16:43:44.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-23T16:43:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Baltz{{ FIELD }}December 23, 2025\nAdvised Power Sustainable Lios on its acquisition of Crofters Food.{{ FIELD }}December 12, 2025\nAdvised Slate Asset Management on its acquisition of Cold-Link Logistics.{{ FIELD }}October 10, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of MBA Mission USA.{{ FIELD }}September 26, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of Reach Cambridge.{{ FIELD }}September 24, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisitions of EnviroSmart Sumter Solidification and High Pressure Investments.{{ FIELD }}September 5, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Guidewell Education.{{ FIELD }}September 2, 2025\nAdvised Red Dog Equity on its sale of Superio USA Waste to GFL Environmental.{{ FIELD }}July 9, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Empower Community Care to NexPhase Capital.{{ FIELD }}July 1, 2025\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of C\u0026amp;K Paving Contractors.{{ FIELD }}July 1, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of The Difference Card to Stone Point Capital.{{ FIELD }}February 27, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Strategic Claim Consultants.{{ FIELD }}January 16, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Plus Delta Partners.{{ FIELD }}November 12, 2024\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Stellar Public Adjusting Services.{{ FIELD }}October 11, 2024\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Sam the Concrete Man.{{ FIELD }}July 5, 2024\nAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of KidKraft in a Chapter 11 process.{{ FIELD }}July 1, 2024\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of BrandMuscle Holdings to Truelink Capital Partners.{{ FIELD }}April 27, 2024\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of VMG Health to Incline Partners.{{ FIELD }}February 28, 2024\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AYA Medical Spa.{{ FIELD }}October 27, 2023\nAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Rotomaster to MidOcean Partners and Cloyes Gear \u0026amp; Products.{{ FIELD }}September 26, 2023\nAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Waste Harmonics to TPG and Keter Environmental Services.{{ FIELD }}June 30, 2023\nAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Cardone Industries to First Brands Group.{{ FIELD }}June 30, 2023\nAdvised Arcapita and Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services on their acquisition of Integrity Appraisal Management.{{ FIELD }}April 28, 2023\nAdvised Northland Capital Partners and VMG Health on their acquisition of the assets of BSM Financial.{{ FIELD }}April 28, 2023\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Impact Home Services.{{ FIELD }}March 31, 2023\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AmeriSpec and Furniture Medic from Roark Capital.{{ FIELD }}October 21, 2022\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Eskola Roofing.{{ FIELD }}September 12, 2022\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of assets from Driven Brands.{{ FIELD }}December 1, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Atlantic Pipe Services.{{ FIELD }}March 29, 2022\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Enviro-Master International Franchise.{{ FIELD }}March 24, 2022\nAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products in its completion of a continuation fund involving Timber Bay Partners.{{ FIELD }}December 31, 2021\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services.{{ FIELD }}December 24, 2021\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Caliber Car Wash to Percheon Capital.{{ FIELD }}December 21, 2021\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Recreational Group to Sentinel Capital Partners.{{ FIELD }}December 15, 2021\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Impact Auto.{{ FIELD }}September 24, 2021\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Illinois.{{ FIELD }}September 17, 2021\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Missouri.{{ FIELD }}August 19, 2021\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Utah.{{ FIELD }}July 19, 2021\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of One Plus Systems.{{ FIELD }}June 30, 2021\nAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Stratus Unlimited to Vestar Capital Partners.{{ FIELD }}June 1, 2021\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of The Difference Card.{{ FIELD }}April 30, 2021\nAdvised Red Dog Equity on its acquisition of PureMagic Carwash.{{ FIELD }}March 29, 2021\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Empower Community Care.{{ FIELD }}January 28, 2021\nAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of Yardistry Limited.{{ FIELD }}November 24, 2020\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on is sale of Lone Star Overnight to WeDo Logistics.{{ FIELD }}June 11, 2020\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Code Ninjas.{{ FIELD }}March 17, 2020\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of VMG Health.{{ FIELD }}December 30, 2019\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on the sale of Planet Fitness studio franchises to American Securities.{{ FIELD }}December 26, 2019\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Waste Harmonics, a leading provider of waste and recycling management solutions.{{ FIELD }}December 19, 2019\nAdvised Brookfield Infrastructure Group and Public Sector Pension Investment on their sale of Wind Energy Transmission Texas to Axiom Infrastructure.{{ FIELD }}November 27, 2019\nAdvised Level 5 Capital on its sale of Corepower Yoga studio franchises to TSG Consumer Partners.{{ FIELD }}November 4, 2019\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Chicken Salad Chick to Brentwood Associates.{{ FIELD }}August 30, 2019\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Icon Investment Holdings, a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.{{ FIELD }}July 8, 2019\nAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with the sale of AdaptHealth Holdings to DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. (NASDAQ: DFBH), a special purpose acquisition company sponsored by Deerfield Management.{{ FIELD }}June 19, 2019\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness studio franchises from affiliates of Michigan OT Partnership.{{ FIELD }}April 11, 2019\nAdvised Brookfield Principal Credit (\"BPC\") on a transaction which resulted in BPC acquiring 85% of the limited partnership interests of Cardone Industries, a leading aftermarket auto parts manufacturer of new and remanufactured auto parts.{{ FIELD }}March 15, 2019\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Science Care to Levine Leichtman Capital Partners.{{ FIELD }}February 27, 2019\nAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with its investment in common equity and subordinated debt of AdaptHealth Holdings.{{ FIELD }}January 28, 2019\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Coastal Sign and Wayfinding, Inc., a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.{{ FIELD }}Ray represents private equity and hedge funds, and counsels corporations, in merger and acquisition transactions, financings and related matters. \nMr. Baltz is a senior partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Corporate, Finance and Investment Group and the former head of the Global Corporate Department.  Mr. Baltz has extensive experience representing private equity and hedge funds in a wide variety of matters. Mr. Baltz has handled private equity buyouts totaling over $30 billion in the past several years.  Mr. Baltz is an adept business lawyer who is especially skilled at structuring private equity acquisitions and investments involving middle-market companies and executing leveraged buyouts on behalf of institutional buy-side clients.  Mr. Baltz also is a member of the Southeast chapter of the Business Executives for National Security (BENS), and a former member of the Boards of Directors of Big Brothers Big Sisters and Buckhead Baseball.  \nKey Clients:\nArcapita\nAssured Investment Management\nBrookfield Asset Management\nEagle Merchant Partners\nLevel 5 Capital Partners\nNorthlane Capital Partners\nPower Sustainable Lios\nRed Dog Equity\nRoark Capital\nSlate Asset Management\nSource Capital\n  Raymond E Baltz Partner Eastern Nazarene College  Boston University Boston University School of Law Boston College Boston College Law School Georgia State Bar of Georgia December 23, 2025\nAdvised Power Sustainable Lios on its acquisition of Crofters Food. December 12, 2025\nAdvised Slate Asset Management on its acquisition of Cold-Link Logistics. October 10, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of MBA Mission USA. September 26, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of Reach Cambridge. September 24, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisitions of EnviroSmart Sumter Solidification and High Pressure Investments. September 5, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Guidewell Education. September 2, 2025\nAdvised Red Dog Equity on its sale of Superio USA Waste to GFL Environmental. July 9, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Empower Community Care to NexPhase Capital. July 1, 2025\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of C\u0026amp;K Paving Contractors. July 1, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of The Difference Card to Stone Point Capital. February 27, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Strategic Claim Consultants. January 16, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Plus Delta Partners. November 12, 2024\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Stellar Public Adjusting Services. October 11, 2024\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Sam the Concrete Man. July 5, 2024\nAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of KidKraft in a Chapter 11 process. July 1, 2024\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of BrandMuscle Holdings to Truelink Capital Partners. April 27, 2024\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of VMG Health to Incline Partners. February 28, 2024\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AYA Medical Spa. October 27, 2023\nAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Rotomaster to MidOcean Partners and Cloyes Gear \u0026amp; Products. September 26, 2023\nAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Waste Harmonics to TPG and Keter Environmental Services. June 30, 2023\nAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Cardone Industries to First Brands Group. June 30, 2023\nAdvised Arcapita and Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services on their acquisition of Integrity Appraisal Management. April 28, 2023\nAdvised Northland Capital Partners and VMG Health on their acquisition of the assets of BSM Financial. April 28, 2023\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Impact Home Services. March 31, 2023\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AmeriSpec and Furniture Medic from Roark Capital. October 21, 2022\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Eskola Roofing. September 12, 2022\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of assets from Driven Brands. December 1, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Atlantic Pipe Services. March 29, 2022\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Enviro-Master International Franchise. March 24, 2022\nAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products in its completion of a continuation fund involving Timber Bay Partners. December 31, 2021\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services. December 24, 2021\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Caliber Car Wash to Percheon Capital. December 21, 2021\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Recreational Group to Sentinel Capital Partners. December 15, 2021\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Impact Auto. September 24, 2021\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Illinois. September 17, 2021\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Missouri. August 19, 2021\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Utah. July 19, 2021\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of One Plus Systems. June 30, 2021\nAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Stratus Unlimited to Vestar Capital Partners. June 1, 2021\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of The Difference Card. April 30, 2021\nAdvised Red Dog Equity on its acquisition of PureMagic Carwash. March 29, 2021\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Empower Community Care. January 28, 2021\nAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of Yardistry Limited. November 24, 2020\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on is sale of Lone Star Overnight to WeDo Logistics. June 11, 2020\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Code Ninjas. March 17, 2020\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of VMG Health. December 30, 2019\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on the sale of Planet Fitness studio franchises to American Securities. December 26, 2019\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Waste Harmonics, a leading provider of waste and recycling management solutions. December 19, 2019\nAdvised Brookfield Infrastructure Group and Public Sector Pension Investment on their sale of Wind Energy Transmission Texas to Axiom Infrastructure. November 27, 2019\nAdvised Level 5 Capital on its sale of Corepower Yoga studio franchises to TSG Consumer Partners. November 4, 2019\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Chicken Salad Chick to Brentwood Associates. August 30, 2019\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Icon Investment Holdings, a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage. July 8, 2019\nAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with the sale of AdaptHealth Holdings to DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. (NASDAQ: DFBH), a special purpose acquisition company sponsored by Deerfield Management. June 19, 2019\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness studio franchises from affiliates of Michigan OT Partnership. April 11, 2019\nAdvised Brookfield Principal Credit (\"BPC\") on a transaction which resulted in BPC acquiring 85% of the limited partnership interests of Cardone Industries, a leading aftermarket auto parts manufacturer of new and remanufactured auto parts. March 15, 2019\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Science Care to Levine Leichtman Capital Partners. February 27, 2019\nAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with its investment in common equity and subordinated debt of AdaptHealth Holdings. January 28, 2019\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Coastal Sign and Wayfinding, Inc., a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.","searchable_name":"Raymond E. Baltz, Jr. (Ray)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":443887,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6347,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKeri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri is ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;and was recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of four MVP\u0026rsquo;s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"keri-borders","email":"kborders@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e--- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Borders","nick_name":"Keri","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Judge Robert J. Timlin, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"1998 - 1998"}],"first_name":"Keri","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1997-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026 Beverages: Regulatory \u0026 Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023"},{"title":"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)","detail":"2020"},{"title":"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021"},{"title":"Named Women of Influence","detail":"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021"},{"title":"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner","detail":"Diversity Law Journal"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/keri-borders-36814112/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKeri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri is ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;and was recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of four MVP\u0026rsquo;s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e--- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026 Beverages: Regulatory \u0026 Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023"},{"title":"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)","detail":"2020"},{"title":"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021"},{"title":"Named Women of Influence","detail":"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021"},{"title":"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner","detail":"Diversity Law Journal"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9734}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:07.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Borders{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Next Generation Partner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026amp; Beverages: Regulatory \u0026amp; Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Women of Influence\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Diversity Law Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products.{{ FIELD }}Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.{{ FIELD }}Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.{{ FIELD }}Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.{{ FIELD }}Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., --- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.{{ FIELD }}Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.{{ FIELD }}Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.{{ FIELD }}Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.{{ FIELD }}Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’”{{ FIELD }}Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.{{ FIELD }}Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.{{ FIELD }}Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.{{ FIELD }}In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue.{{ FIELD }}Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products.{{ FIELD }}Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.{{ FIELD }}Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements.{{ FIELD }}Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products.{{ FIELD }}Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.{{ FIELD }}Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.{{ FIELD }}Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.{{ FIELD }}Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy.{{ FIELD }}Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.{{ FIELD }}Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).{{ FIELD }}Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.{{ FIELD }}Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.”{{ FIELD }}In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.{{ FIELD }}Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).{{ FIELD }}Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.{{ FIELD }}Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”{{ FIELD }}Keri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.\nKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\nKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\nKeri is ranked in Chambers USA, Legal 500, and was recognized by Law360 as one of four MVP’s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020. Partner Next Generation Partner Legal 500, 2023 Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026amp; Beverages: Regulatory \u0026amp; Litigation Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023 Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability) 2020 Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021 Named Women of Influence Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021 2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner Diversity Law Journal University of California  University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Member, American Bar Association Board of Governors, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Los Angeles Chapter Member, Food and Drug Law Institute Member, Consumer Brands Association Law Clerk, Judge Robert J. Timlin, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products. Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement. Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted. Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil. Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., --- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022). Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims. Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022). Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product. Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product. Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses. Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’” Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed. Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case. Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client. In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue. Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products. Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements. Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements. Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products. Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted. Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products. Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice. Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy. Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013). Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception. Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.). Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four. Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.” In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013). Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement. Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay). Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend. Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”","searchable_name":"Keri Borders","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":436448,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":4101,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHeather Ba\u0026ntilde;uelos\u0026nbsp;is Counsel in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Washington, DC office and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s FDA \u0026amp; Life Sciences practice group. Her practice focuses on regulatory strategies and initiatives for the labeling,\u0026nbsp;advertising and promotion\u0026nbsp;of FDA-regulated products: prescription and OTC drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, foods, and dietary supplements. Heather has served as the legal and/or regulatory member on dozens of promotional review committees and medical and scientific review committees, with a knack for practical advice and recommendations to help clients find a successful path forward.\u0026nbsp;She is also a frequent speaker on advertising and promotion issues at industry conferences and client training.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeather\u0026rsquo;s experience in FDA law spans over 20 years and includes positions as a former Associate Chief Counsel in the FDA\u0026rsquo;s Office of the Chief Counsel and senior in-house regulatory counsel for multiple clients, including two large pharmaceutical companies and a leading food company. Her experiences in government and in-house give her a unique and valuable perspective as outside counsel.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a former Associate Chief Counsel in the FDA\u0026rsquo;s Office of the Chief Counsel, Heather advised the FDA\u0026rsquo;s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition on various matters pertaining to the regulation of food, dietary supplements and cosmetics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeather has also served as senior in-house regulatory counsel for multiple clients, including two large pharmaceutical companies and a leading food company. In these positions, she was responsible for advising on domestic and international regulatory and legal matters, such as the development, marketing and labeling of products, competitor issues, recalls and market withdrawals, and promotion and advertising, among others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeather graduated from the University of Southern California School of Law, where she served as an editorial member of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSouthern California Law Review\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and on the Board of Directors for the Public Interest Law Foundation.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"heather-banuelos","email":"hbanuelos@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Banuelos","nick_name":"Heather","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Heather","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":2389,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2000-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/heatherbanuelos/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHeather Ba\u0026ntilde;uelos\u0026nbsp;is Counsel in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Washington, DC office and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s FDA \u0026amp; Life Sciences practice group. Her practice focuses on regulatory strategies and initiatives for the labeling,\u0026nbsp;advertising and promotion\u0026nbsp;of FDA-regulated products: prescription and OTC drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, foods, and dietary supplements. Heather has served as the legal and/or regulatory member on dozens of promotional review committees and medical and scientific review committees, with a knack for practical advice and recommendations to help clients find a successful path forward.\u0026nbsp;She is also a frequent speaker on advertising and promotion issues at industry conferences and client training.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeather\u0026rsquo;s experience in FDA law spans over 20 years and includes positions as a former Associate Chief Counsel in the FDA\u0026rsquo;s Office of the Chief Counsel and senior in-house regulatory counsel for multiple clients, including two large pharmaceutical companies and a leading food company. Her experiences in government and in-house give her a unique and valuable perspective as outside counsel.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a former Associate Chief Counsel in the FDA\u0026rsquo;s Office of the Chief Counsel, Heather advised the FDA\u0026rsquo;s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition on various matters pertaining to the regulation of food, dietary supplements and cosmetics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeather has also served as senior in-house regulatory counsel for multiple clients, including two large pharmaceutical companies and a leading food company. In these positions, she was responsible for advising on domestic and international regulatory and legal matters, such as the development, marketing and labeling of products, competitor issues, recalls and market withdrawals, and promotion and advertising, among others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeather graduated from the University of Southern California School of Law, where she served as an editorial member of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSouthern California Law Review\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and on the Board of Directors for the Public Interest Law Foundation.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6073}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:54:39.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:54:39.000Z","searchable_text":"Banuelos{{ FIELD }}Heather Bañuelos is Counsel in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Washington, DC office and a member of the firm’s FDA \u0026amp; Life Sciences practice group. Her practice focuses on regulatory strategies and initiatives for the labeling, advertising and promotion of FDA-regulated products: prescription and OTC drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, foods, and dietary supplements. Heather has served as the legal and/or regulatory member on dozens of promotional review committees and medical and scientific review committees, with a knack for practical advice and recommendations to help clients find a successful path forward. She is also a frequent speaker on advertising and promotion issues at industry conferences and client training.\nHeather’s experience in FDA law spans over 20 years and includes positions as a former Associate Chief Counsel in the FDA’s Office of the Chief Counsel and senior in-house regulatory counsel for multiple clients, including two large pharmaceutical companies and a leading food company. Her experiences in government and in-house give her a unique and valuable perspective as outside counsel.\nAs a former Associate Chief Counsel in the FDA’s Office of the Chief Counsel, Heather advised the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition on various matters pertaining to the regulation of food, dietary supplements and cosmetics.\nHeather has also served as senior in-house regulatory counsel for multiple clients, including two large pharmaceutical companies and a leading food company. In these positions, she was responsible for advising on domestic and international regulatory and legal matters, such as the development, marketing and labeling of products, competitor issues, recalls and market withdrawals, and promotion and advertising, among others.\nHeather graduated from the University of Southern California School of Law, where she served as an editorial member of the Southern California Law Review and on the Board of Directors for the Public Interest Law Foundation. Counsel University of Southern California USC Gould School of Law University of Southern California USC Gould School of Law California District of Columbia Food and Drug Law Institute","searchable_name":"Heather Banuelos","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}