{"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":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":null,"value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"5","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"B","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":442768,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5372,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"melvin-bailey","email":"mbailey@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bailey","nick_name":"Mel","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Melvin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":1896,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1987-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Super Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)"},{"title":"Texas Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in Dallas","detail":"Dallas D Magazine"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2017-2018"},{"title":"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy","detail":"2017"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/mel-bailey-10aa2033/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Super Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)"},{"title":"Texas Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in Dallas","detail":"Dallas D Magazine"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2017-2018"},{"title":"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy","detail":"2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6358}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:46.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:46.000Z","searchable_text":"Bailey{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in Dallas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Dallas D Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017-2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Mel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.\nMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation. Partner Super Lawyer Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018) Texas Lawyer Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018) Best Lawyers in Dallas Dallas D Magazine Best Lawyers in America 2017-2018 International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy 2017 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Texas Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers Member, International Association of Defense Counsel Fellow, Litigation of Trial Counsel Member, The Trial Lawyer Honorary Society Former Member, American Board Trial Advocates Member, Diversity Law Institute Member, Trial Law Institute Inactive  Member, American Board of Trial Advocates IADC Trial Academy Faculty, Stanford University","searchable_name":"Melvin D. Bailey (Mel)","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":437134,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"david-balser","email":"dbalser@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":18}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Balser","nick_name":"David","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"1987-1989"}],"first_name":"David","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11778}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Balser{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is top in class action litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"U.S. “Litigation Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Class Actions{{ FIELD }}Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.{{ FIELD }}Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.{{ FIELD }}Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.{{ FIELD }}Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.{{ FIELD }}Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.{{ FIELD }}Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.{{ FIELD }}Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.{{ FIELD }}Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.{{ FIELD }}Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes{{ FIELD }}Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets{{ FIELD }}Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.{{ FIELD }}Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.{{ FIELD }}Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project.{{ FIELD }}Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.”{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor.{{ FIELD }}Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.{{ FIELD }}David Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients’ most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation. \nRanked by Chambers USA as a “Star Individual” for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\n\n “He is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best.”\n“He has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation.”\n“He can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive.”\n“He is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met.”\n“He's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.”\n\nDavid’s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as Distinguished Leader by the Daily Report in 2022, which praised his “proven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.” He has also been named a “Litigation Star” by Benchmark Litigation and honored as a BTI Client Service All-Star. David’s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges. \nDavid leads the firm’s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\n  David L Balser Partner Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT “His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.”  DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022 \"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\"  Chambers USA 2023 “He is top in class action litigation\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.” CHAMBERS USA 2023 Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection) THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022 “Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation Best Lawyers in America U.S. “Litigation Star”  Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present 2018 BTI Client Service All-Star BTI, 2018 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School Georgia Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Class Actions Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products. Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services. Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit. Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit. Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court. Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality. Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial. Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees. Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company. Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website. Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act. Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment. Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds. Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance. Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island. Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action. Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019. Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project. Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia. Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.” Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment. Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims. Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor. Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.","searchable_name":"David L. Balser","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447228,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7274,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"william-barnette-2","email":"wbarnette@kslaw.com ","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":18,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":19,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Barnette","nick_name":"Will","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana","years_held":"1995 - 1996"}],"first_name":"William","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1136,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13228}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","searchable_text":"Barnette{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Class Actions Section\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"General Counsel Pro Bono Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Store Support Excellence Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Member\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Law Institute, 2025-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2024-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2019-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.){{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.){{ FIELD }}Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)* {{ FIELD }}Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) * {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)* {{ FIELD }}Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998) {{ FIELD }}Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005) {{ FIELD }}Recovery {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Appeals {{ FIELD }}Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068{{ FIELD }}Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)* {{ FIELD }}Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999) {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)* {{ FIELD }}Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)* {{ FIELD }}Investigations {{ FIELD }}Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act {{ FIELD }}*Representation while in-house counsel {{ FIELD }}Will Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm’s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade, and winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the “v.” In particular, he has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations. \nPrior to rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will served as Associate General Counsel for The Home Depot and was a member of the company’s Legal Senior Leadership Team. As leader of The Home Depot’s commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he was responsible for the company’s most significant commercial and business litigation, which frequently challenged core aspects of the company’s business. During his 21-year tenure with The Home Depot, Will led the successful defense of several hundred class actions, created and led the company’s recovery litigation program, and successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\nA recognized thought leader in complex litigation, Will argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term—one of the few in-house counsel to do so. He received the Atlanta Business Chronicle’s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works, Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction and There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions, ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He frequently lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award in 2025. \nWill chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, which was instrumental in passing Georgia’s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will played varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute. Partner Chairman-Board of Directors Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020 Chairman-Class Actions Section State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present  Chairman-Board of Directors Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25 General Counsel Pro Bono Award The Home Depot, 2020 Store Support Excellence Award The Home Depot, 2024 Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016 Member American Law Institute, 2025-present Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025 Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow 2024-present Litigation Counsel of America Fellow  2019-2023 Sewanee: The University of the South  Loyola University New Orleans Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Supreme Court of the United States Georgia Louisiana Chairman, State Bar of Georgia, Class Actions Section, 2024-present Member, American Law Institute, 2025-present Member, Board of Directors, Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2017-present; Vice-Chairman, 2022-23; Chairman; 2023-25 Member, In-House Counsel Advisory Board, Emory Law Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims, 2017-present Member, Lawyers Club of Atlanta, 2002-present Member, State Bar of Georgia, 2000-present Member, Louisiana State Bar Association, 1995-present Member, Executive Committee of Board of Directors of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2013-2021; Secretary (2017); Treasurer (2018); Vice-President (2019); President (2020) Member, Georgia Senate Study Committee on Legal Reform, 2019-2020 Member, American Bar Association House of Delegates, 1998-2002 Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.) Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.) Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*  Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*  Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*  Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*  Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*  Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) *  Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*  Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)  Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*  Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)  Recovery  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*  Appeals  Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*  Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)  Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*  Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*  Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*  Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*  Investigations  Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act  *Representation while in-house counsel ","searchable_name":"William P. Barnette (Will)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442360,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":852,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.\u0026nbsp; Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: \u003cstrong\u003eBrown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences,\u0026nbsp;Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s office in Miami.\u0026nbsp; He serves as Managing Partner of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Miami office.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"w-randall-bassett","email":"rbassett@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3D22-0320.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":5}]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bassett","nick_name":"Randy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"W. Randall","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2010–2016"},{"title":"Chambers USA","detail":"2010–2015"},{"title":"Legal 500","detail":"2010–2016"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/wrandallbassett/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":126,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.\u0026nbsp; Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: \u003cstrong\u003eBrown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences,\u0026nbsp;Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s office in Miami.\u0026nbsp; He serves as Managing Partner of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Miami office.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3D22-0320.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2010–2016"},{"title":"Chambers USA","detail":"2010–2015"},{"title":"Legal 500","detail":"2010–2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5463}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:28.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:28.000Z","searchable_text":"Bassett{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for United Parcel Service in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for R.J. Reynolds in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA, No. 3D22-0320.{{ FIELD }}Randy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.  Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.\nRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: Brown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences, Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and United Parcel Service, Inc.\nRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\nRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding’s office in Miami.  He serves as Managing Partner of the firm’s Miami office. W Randall Bassett Partner Best Lawyers in America 2010–2016 Chambers USA 2010–2015 Legal 500 2010–2016 The Citadel  University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Florida Georgia Hawaii American Bar Association Litigation Counsel of America American Bar Fellow State Bar of Georgia Lawyers Club of Atlanta Defense Research Institute State Bar of Florida Georgia Defense Lawyers Association International Association of Defense Counsel International Society of Barristers Product Liability Advisory Council Served as lead trial counsel for United Parcel Service in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas. Served as lead trial counsel for R.J. Reynolds in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. Served as lead trial counsel for Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA, No. 3D22-0320.","searchable_name":"W. Randall Bassett (Randy)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445014,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3436,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLohr's practice focuses on high-stakes business disputes with an emphasis on antitrust matters and consumer protection matters. Lohr\u0026nbsp;represents clients in relation to high exposure civil litigation, including class actions, multi-district litigation, and matters with complex e-discovery issues. Lohr also represents clients in relation to government investigations and counsels clients regarding antitrust and consumer protection issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeadership and\u0026nbsp;Community Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCenter for Puppetry Arts, Board member\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeorgia Lawyers for the Arts,\u0026nbsp;Board member\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAtlanta Women's Foundation, Inspire Atlanta Leadership Program Class of 2019\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lohr-beck","email":"lohr.beck@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovo Nordisk Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against pharmaceutical company manufacturers of diabetes medications alleging conspiracy to artificially fix prices of diabetes medications by agreeing to coordinate and eliminate, reduce, or limit the availability of Contract Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of \u003cstrong\u003eECI Management, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e in antitrust MDL proceeding in Nashville, Tennessee alleging that owners and managers of multifamily rental housing conspired to raise prices through use of algorithmic revenue management software.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSix Continents Hotels, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against Six Continents and other major hotel companies alleging that defendant hotel companies conspired to eliminate competition for branded keyword search advertising against each other, illegally raising consumers\u0026rsquo; costs to find and book hotel rooms, and seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKemira Chemicals Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, alleging conspiracy to fix prices in sale of liquid aluminum sulfate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKan Am (US)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation filed by Simon Property Group affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery involving the interpretation of buy/sell provisions in joint venture agreements regarding major retail shopping malls throughout the United States.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3205}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Beck","nick_name":"Lohr","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Lohr","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":659,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"with honors, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2014-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Lohr Beck is a partner at King \u0026 Spalding. Read more about her.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLohr's practice focuses on high-stakes business disputes with an emphasis on antitrust matters and consumer protection matters. Lohr\u0026nbsp;represents clients in relation to high exposure civil litigation, including class actions, multi-district litigation, and matters with complex e-discovery issues. Lohr also represents clients in relation to government investigations and counsels clients regarding antitrust and consumer protection issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeadership and\u0026nbsp;Community Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCenter for Puppetry Arts, Board member\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeorgia Lawyers for the Arts,\u0026nbsp;Board member\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAtlanta Women's Foundation, Inspire Atlanta Leadership Program Class of 2019\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovo Nordisk Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against pharmaceutical company manufacturers of diabetes medications alleging conspiracy to artificially fix prices of diabetes medications by agreeing to coordinate and eliminate, reduce, or limit the availability of Contract Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of \u003cstrong\u003eECI Management, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e in antitrust MDL proceeding in Nashville, Tennessee alleging that owners and managers of multifamily rental housing conspired to raise prices through use of algorithmic revenue management software.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSix Continents Hotels, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against Six Continents and other major hotel companies alleging that defendant hotel companies conspired to eliminate competition for branded keyword search advertising against each other, illegally raising consumers\u0026rsquo; costs to find and book hotel rooms, and seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKemira Chemicals Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, alleging conspiracy to fix prices in sale of liquid aluminum sulfate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKan Am (US)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation filed by Simon Property Group affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery involving the interpretation of buy/sell provisions in joint venture agreements regarding major retail shopping malls throughout the United States.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11787}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-13T21:27:06.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-13T21:27:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Beck{{ FIELD }}Defense of Novo Nordisk Inc. in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against pharmaceutical company manufacturers of diabetes medications alleging conspiracy to artificially fix prices of diabetes medications by agreeing to coordinate and eliminate, reduce, or limit the availability of Contract Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts.{{ FIELD }}Defense of ECI Management, LLC in antitrust MDL proceeding in Nashville, Tennessee alleging that owners and managers of multifamily rental housing conspired to raise prices through use of algorithmic revenue management software.{{ FIELD }}Defense of Six Continents Hotels, Inc. in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against Six Continents and other major hotel companies alleging that defendant hotel companies conspired to eliminate competition for branded keyword search advertising against each other, illegally raising consumers’ costs to find and book hotel rooms, and seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.{{ FIELD }}Defense of Kemira Chemicals Inc. in MDL proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, alleging conspiracy to fix prices in sale of liquid aluminum sulfate.{{ FIELD }}Defense of Kan Am (US) in litigation filed by Simon Property Group affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery involving the interpretation of buy/sell provisions in joint venture agreements regarding major retail shopping malls throughout the United States.{{ FIELD }}Lohr's practice focuses on high-stakes business disputes with an emphasis on antitrust matters and consumer protection matters. Lohr represents clients in relation to high exposure civil litigation, including class actions, multi-district litigation, and matters with complex e-discovery issues. Lohr also represents clients in relation to government investigations and counsels clients regarding antitrust and consumer protection issues. \nLeadership and Community Service\nCenter for Puppetry Arts, Board member\nGeorgia Lawyers for the Arts, Board member\nAtlanta Women's Foundation, Inspire Atlanta Leadership Program Class of 2019 Lohr Beck lawyer Partner George Washington University George Washington University Law School Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia Defense of Novo Nordisk Inc. in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against pharmaceutical company manufacturers of diabetes medications alleging conspiracy to artificially fix prices of diabetes medications by agreeing to coordinate and eliminate, reduce, or limit the availability of Contract Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts. Defense of ECI Management, LLC in antitrust MDL proceeding in Nashville, Tennessee alleging that owners and managers of multifamily rental housing conspired to raise prices through use of algorithmic revenue management software. Defense of Six Continents Hotels, Inc. in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against Six Continents and other major hotel companies alleging that defendant hotel companies conspired to eliminate competition for branded keyword search advertising against each other, illegally raising consumers’ costs to find and book hotel rooms, and seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. Defense of Kemira Chemicals Inc. in MDL proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, alleging conspiracy to fix prices in sale of liquid aluminum sulfate. Defense of Kan Am (US) in litigation filed by Simon Property Group affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery involving the interpretation of buy/sell provisions in joint venture agreements regarding major retail shopping malls throughout the United States.","searchable_name":"Lohr A. Beck","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426402,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3251,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVanessa Benichou, Head of the Paris Litigation Department, is specialized in Dispute Resolution in all its forms: in international arbitration, litigation before Civil, Commercial and Criminal Courts or in the context of settlements or mediation. She is also qualified to act as arbitrator and mediator.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHer litigation practice includes commercial and business law, corporate law, unfair and parasitic competition, advertising and\u0026nbsp;entertainment, intellectual property, commercial leases and contracts, construction and product liability.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe also has extensive experience in distribution agreements, especially in franchise.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVanessa Benichou is highly ranked by Leaders League - Decideurs every year.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is fluent in English, French and Hebrew and conversant in Spanish.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"vanessa-benichou","email":"vbenichou@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFrench Government\u003c/strong\u003e before French courts and before the Indian Supreme Court in connection with the dismantling of the military aircraft carrier Cl\u0026eacute;menceau in India.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLa Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Jeux (the French State Lottery company),\u003c/strong\u003e before the Criminal Court of Paris in a case brought pursuant to a complaint by the producers of the hit French movie, \u0026ldquo;Les Choristes,\u0026rdquo; and the cinema industry, for conspiracy of piracy and trademark infringement because its advertising was available on peer-to-peer websites where the movie was offered for illegal downloading.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLa Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Jeux (the French State Lottery company),\u003c/strong\u003e before the Paris Commercial Court in a case brought by a majority of its network's members alleging a wrongful termination of their distribution contracts and asking for damages in an amount of \u0026euro;550 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of Canada-based \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCaisse de D\u0026eacute;p\u0026ocirc;t et Placement du Qu\u0026eacute;bec\u003c/strong\u003e, in a lawsuit involving claims of wrongful termination of credit related to bankruptcy of a France-based company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLebanese company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC Arbitration against the French company Sodexho International, regarding a wrongful termination of a joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the French leading hairdresser network company, \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eProvalliance,\u003c/strong\u003e in a litigation regarding wrongful termination of distribution contracts and trademark infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the French leading hairdresser network company, \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eProvalliance,\u003c/strong\u003e in a litigation brought by its main competitor for unfair business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of an \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003einternational grain trading company\u003c/strong\u003e, in a couple of arbitration proceedings before the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris, regarding the application and the interpretation of the provisions of an international trading contract.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":6}]},"expertise":[{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Benichou","nick_name":"Vanessa","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Vanessa","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVanessa Benichou, Head of the Paris Litigation Department, is specialized in Dispute Resolution in all its forms: in international arbitration, litigation before Civil, Commercial and Criminal Courts or in the context of settlements or mediation. She is also qualified to act as arbitrator and mediator.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHer litigation practice includes commercial and business law, corporate law, unfair and parasitic competition, advertising and\u0026nbsp;entertainment, intellectual property, commercial leases and contracts, construction and product liability.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe also has extensive experience in distribution agreements, especially in franchise.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVanessa Benichou is highly ranked by Leaders League - Decideurs every year.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is fluent in English, French and Hebrew and conversant in Spanish.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFrench Government\u003c/strong\u003e before French courts and before the Indian Supreme Court in connection with the dismantling of the military aircraft carrier Cl\u0026eacute;menceau in India.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLa Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Jeux (the French State Lottery company),\u003c/strong\u003e before the Criminal Court of Paris in a case brought pursuant to a complaint by the producers of the hit French movie, \u0026ldquo;Les Choristes,\u0026rdquo; and the cinema industry, for conspiracy of piracy and trademark infringement because its advertising was available on peer-to-peer websites where the movie was offered for illegal downloading.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLa Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Jeux (the French State Lottery company),\u003c/strong\u003e before the Paris Commercial Court in a case brought by a majority of its network's members alleging a wrongful termination of their distribution contracts and asking for damages in an amount of \u0026euro;550 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of Canada-based \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCaisse de D\u0026eacute;p\u0026ocirc;t et Placement du Qu\u0026eacute;bec\u003c/strong\u003e, in a lawsuit involving claims of wrongful termination of credit related to bankruptcy of a France-based company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLebanese company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC Arbitration against the French company Sodexho International, regarding a wrongful termination of a joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the French leading hairdresser network company, \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eProvalliance,\u003c/strong\u003e in a litigation regarding wrongful termination of distribution contracts and trademark infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the French leading hairdresser network company, \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eProvalliance,\u003c/strong\u003e in a litigation brought by its main competitor for unfair business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of an \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003einternational grain trading company\u003c/strong\u003e, in a couple of arbitration proceedings before the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris, regarding the application and the interpretation of the provisions of an international trading contract.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12236}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:28.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:28.000Z","searchable_text":"Benichou{{ FIELD }}Representation of the French Government before French courts and before the Indian Supreme Court in connection with the dismantling of the military aircraft carrier Clémenceau in India.{{ FIELD }}Representation of La Française des Jeux (the French State Lottery company), before the Criminal Court of Paris in a case brought pursuant to a complaint by the producers of the hit French movie, “Les Choristes,” and the cinema industry, for conspiracy of piracy and trademark infringement because its advertising was available on peer-to-peer websites where the movie was offered for illegal downloading.{{ FIELD }}Representation of La Française des Jeux (the French State Lottery company), before the Paris Commercial Court in a case brought by a majority of its network's members alleging a wrongful termination of their distribution contracts and asking for damages in an amount of €550 million.{{ FIELD }}Representation of Canada-based Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec, in a lawsuit involving claims of wrongful termination of credit related to bankruptcy of a France-based company.{{ FIELD }}Representation of a Lebanese company in an ICC Arbitration against the French company Sodexho International, regarding a wrongful termination of a joint venture.{{ FIELD }}Representation of the French leading hairdresser network company, Provalliance, in a litigation regarding wrongful termination of distribution contracts and trademark infringement.{{ FIELD }}Representation of the French leading hairdresser network company, Provalliance, in a litigation brought by its main competitor for unfair business.{{ FIELD }}Representation of an international grain trading company, in a couple of arbitration proceedings before the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris, regarding the application and the interpretation of the provisions of an international trading contract.{{ FIELD }}Vanessa Benichou, Head of the Paris Litigation Department, is specialized in Dispute Resolution in all its forms: in international arbitration, litigation before Civil, Commercial and Criminal Courts or in the context of settlements or mediation. She is also qualified to act as arbitrator and mediator. \nHer litigation practice includes commercial and business law, corporate law, unfair and parasitic competition, advertising and entertainment, intellectual property, commercial leases and contracts, construction and product liability. \nShe also has extensive experience in distribution agreements, especially in franchise. \nVanessa Benichou is highly ranked by Leaders League - Decideurs every year. \nShe is fluent in English, French and Hebrew and conversant in Spanish.  Vanessa R Benichou Partner Representation of the French Government before French courts and before the Indian Supreme Court in connection with the dismantling of the military aircraft carrier Clémenceau in India. Representation of La Française des Jeux (the French State Lottery company), before the Criminal Court of Paris in a case brought pursuant to a complaint by the producers of the hit French movie, “Les Choristes,” and the cinema industry, for conspiracy of piracy and trademark infringement because its advertising was available on peer-to-peer websites where the movie was offered for illegal downloading. Representation of La Française des Jeux (the French State Lottery company), before the Paris Commercial Court in a case brought by a majority of its network's members alleging a wrongful termination of their distribution contracts and asking for damages in an amount of €550 million. Representation of Canada-based Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec, in a lawsuit involving claims of wrongful termination of credit related to bankruptcy of a France-based company. Representation of a Lebanese company in an ICC Arbitration against the French company Sodexho International, regarding a wrongful termination of a joint venture. Representation of the French leading hairdresser network company, Provalliance, in a litigation regarding wrongful termination of distribution contracts and trademark infringement. Representation of the French leading hairdresser network company, Provalliance, in a litigation brought by its main competitor for unfair business. Representation of an international grain trading company, in a couple of arbitration proceedings before the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris, regarding the application and the interpretation of the provisions of an international trading contract.","searchable_name":"Vanessa Benichou","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445539,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6785,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDana Berkowitz represents healthcare providers in\u0026nbsp;a variety of high-stakes matters,\u0026nbsp;including reimbursement disputes, regulatory proceedings,\u0026nbsp;and commercial litigation and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; She also provides strategic advice to healthcare and life sciences startups and handles bet-the-company litigation on their behalf. \u0026nbsp;Dana has deep expertise in ERISA and behavioral healthcare. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;describes her as \u0026ldquo;the full package\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;a gifted litigator and strategist\u0026rdquo; who is \u0026ldquo;knowledgeable and solutions-based.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;calls Dana \u0026ldquo;a superlative advocate and tactician.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDana has a\u0026nbsp;long track record of achieving favorable outcomes for healthcare providers in a wide variety of payor disputes.\u0026nbsp; Her practice focuses on managed care litigation and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; Dana also helps providers navigate audits, rate disputes, recoupment demands, and other high-risk aspects of their payor relationships. Dana leverages her ERISA expertise to help her clients take advantage of opportunities, such as by using the Parity Act to improve reimbursement for mental health services.\u0026nbsp; Dana also advises providers on best practices, often in anticipation of sale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDana has achieved success in several bet-the-company litigations and appeals for providers and other business clients.\u0026nbsp; For example, in 2019, she secured a complete defense verdict for a behavioral healthcare provider in a $195 million false advertising case.\u0026nbsp; In 2020, she successfully defended another provider in a four-week administrative trial against the State of California.\u0026nbsp; And in 2022, Dana led a large theft of trade secrets case to a favorable resolution for her biotech startup client.\u0026nbsp; Dana has also briefed and argued\u0026nbsp;high-profile appeals in federal and state courts across the nation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince 2022,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has recognized Dana as one of the top ERISA litigators in the nation.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal500\u003c/em\u003e says that she is \u0026ldquo;unmatched in her ability to quickly ingest, organize, and master an enormous amount of factual information and synthesize it into a winning narrative.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Dana has also been listed as a leading lawyer under 40 in \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eNew York Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"dana-berkowitz","email":"dberkowitz@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParties Confidential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eLead counsel to behavioral health company in rate dispute with major payor. Resolved after service of draft complaint for $30 million more than prior offer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHammell v. Pilot Products, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in ERISA pension dispute. Won more than 90 percent of relief sought including over $1M in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel to American biotech startup in nine-figure federal trade secrets litigation and international arbitration relating to next-generation COVID-19 vaccine. Matter resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGrasshopper House LLC v. Clean \u0026amp; Sober Media LLC.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eFirst-chaired bench trial on equitable relief after adverse jury verdict in Lanham Act case against well-known treatment facility, where plaintiff sought $195M. Court found unclean hands and awarded $0 to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParties Confidential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eResolved dispute on behalf of hospital against independent physician organization on eve of trial for double amount of claimed loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Creative Care.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eFirst-chaired four-week administrative trial against California in license revocation action. Secured complete defense victory for substance abuse treatment facility client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel in franchise arbitration against international coffeehouse chain. Awarded full amount of claimed loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBechard v. Brody.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successfully briefed and argued California appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration in dispute involving Michael Avenatti and Republican fundraiser Elliott Brody.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3251}]},"expertise":[{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":740,"guid":"740.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Berkowitz","nick_name":"Dana","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Dana","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2011-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"\"She is a superlative advocate and tactician.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2025"},{"title":"\"She's the full package: smart, good on her feet, dogged and fierce in all the right ways.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked in \"ERISA Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs (Nationwide)\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022-25"},{"title":"Future Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"40 and Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021-2022, 2024"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"New York Law Journal, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Dana is a lawyer at King \u0026 Spalding's New York Office. Read more about her.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDana Berkowitz represents healthcare providers in\u0026nbsp;a variety of high-stakes matters,\u0026nbsp;including reimbursement disputes, regulatory proceedings,\u0026nbsp;and commercial litigation and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; She also provides strategic advice to healthcare and life sciences startups and handles bet-the-company litigation on their behalf. \u0026nbsp;Dana has deep expertise in ERISA and behavioral healthcare. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;describes her as \u0026ldquo;the full package\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;a gifted litigator and strategist\u0026rdquo; who is \u0026ldquo;knowledgeable and solutions-based.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;calls Dana \u0026ldquo;a superlative advocate and tactician.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDana has a\u0026nbsp;long track record of achieving favorable outcomes for healthcare providers in a wide variety of payor disputes.\u0026nbsp; Her practice focuses on managed care litigation and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; Dana also helps providers navigate audits, rate disputes, recoupment demands, and other high-risk aspects of their payor relationships. Dana leverages her ERISA expertise to help her clients take advantage of opportunities, such as by using the Parity Act to improve reimbursement for mental health services.\u0026nbsp; Dana also advises providers on best practices, often in anticipation of sale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDana has achieved success in several bet-the-company litigations and appeals for providers and other business clients.\u0026nbsp; For example, in 2019, she secured a complete defense verdict for a behavioral healthcare provider in a $195 million false advertising case.\u0026nbsp; In 2020, she successfully defended another provider in a four-week administrative trial against the State of California.\u0026nbsp; And in 2022, Dana led a large theft of trade secrets case to a favorable resolution for her biotech startup client.\u0026nbsp; Dana has also briefed and argued\u0026nbsp;high-profile appeals in federal and state courts across the nation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince 2022,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has recognized Dana as one of the top ERISA litigators in the nation.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal500\u003c/em\u003e says that she is \u0026ldquo;unmatched in her ability to quickly ingest, organize, and master an enormous amount of factual information and synthesize it into a winning narrative.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Dana has also been listed as a leading lawyer under 40 in \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eNew York Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParties Confidential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eLead counsel to behavioral health company in rate dispute with major payor. Resolved after service of draft complaint for $30 million more than prior offer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHammell v. Pilot Products, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in ERISA pension dispute. Won more than 90 percent of relief sought including over $1M in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel to American biotech startup in nine-figure federal trade secrets litigation and international arbitration relating to next-generation COVID-19 vaccine. Matter resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGrasshopper House LLC v. Clean \u0026amp; Sober Media LLC.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eFirst-chaired bench trial on equitable relief after adverse jury verdict in Lanham Act case against well-known treatment facility, where plaintiff sought $195M. Court found unclean hands and awarded $0 to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParties Confidential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eResolved dispute on behalf of hospital against independent physician organization on eve of trial for double amount of claimed loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Creative Care.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eFirst-chaired four-week administrative trial against California in license revocation action. Secured complete defense victory for substance abuse treatment facility client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel in franchise arbitration against international coffeehouse chain. Awarded full amount of claimed loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBechard v. Brody.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successfully briefed and argued California appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration in dispute involving Michael Avenatti and Republican fundraiser Elliott Brody.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"She is a superlative advocate and tactician.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2025"},{"title":"\"She's the full package: smart, good on her feet, dogged and fierce in all the right ways.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked in \"ERISA Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs (Nationwide)\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022-25"},{"title":"Future Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"40 and Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021-2022, 2024"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"New York Law Journal, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11963}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-02-03T16:24:39.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T16:24:39.000Z","searchable_text":"Berkowitz{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"She is a superlative advocate and tactician.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"She's the full package: smart, good on her feet, dogged and fierce in all the right ways.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in \\\"ERISA Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs (Nationwide)\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2022-25\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Future Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 and Under Hot List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2021-2022, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"New York Law Journal, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Parties Confidential. Lead counsel to behavioral health company in rate dispute with major payor. Resolved after service of draft complaint for $30 million more than prior offer.{{ FIELD }}Hammell v. Pilot Products, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in ERISA pension dispute. Won more than 90 percent of relief sought including over $1M in attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Lead trial counsel to American biotech startup in nine-figure federal trade secrets litigation and international arbitration relating to next-generation COVID-19 vaccine. Matter resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Grasshopper House LLC v. Clean \u0026amp; Sober Media LLC. First-chaired bench trial on equitable relief after adverse jury verdict in Lanham Act case against well-known treatment facility, where plaintiff sought $195M. Court found unclean hands and awarded $0 to plaintiff.{{ FIELD }}Parties Confidential. Resolved dispute on behalf of hospital against independent physician organization on eve of trial for double amount of claimed loss.{{ FIELD }}In re Creative Care. First-chaired four-week administrative trial against California in license revocation action. Secured complete defense victory for substance abuse treatment facility client.{{ FIELD }}Lead trial counsel in franchise arbitration against international coffeehouse chain. Awarded full amount of claimed loss.{{ FIELD }}Bechard v. Brody. Successfully briefed and argued California appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration in dispute involving Michael Avenatti and Republican fundraiser Elliott Brody.{{ FIELD }}Dana Berkowitz represents healthcare providers in a variety of high-stakes matters, including reimbursement disputes, regulatory proceedings, and commercial litigation and arbitration.  She also provides strategic advice to healthcare and life sciences startups and handles bet-the-company litigation on their behalf.  Dana has deep expertise in ERISA and behavioral healthcare.  Chambers USA describes her as “the full package” and “a gifted litigator and strategist” who is “knowledgeable and solutions-based.”  Legal500 calls Dana “a superlative advocate and tactician.”\nDana has a long track record of achieving favorable outcomes for healthcare providers in a wide variety of payor disputes.  Her practice focuses on managed care litigation and arbitration.  Dana also helps providers navigate audits, rate disputes, recoupment demands, and other high-risk aspects of their payor relationships. Dana leverages her ERISA expertise to help her clients take advantage of opportunities, such as by using the Parity Act to improve reimbursement for mental health services.  Dana also advises providers on best practices, often in anticipation of sale.\nDana has achieved success in several bet-the-company litigations and appeals for providers and other business clients.  For example, in 2019, she secured a complete defense verdict for a behavioral healthcare provider in a $195 million false advertising case.  In 2020, she successfully defended another provider in a four-week administrative trial against the State of California.  And in 2022, Dana led a large theft of trade secrets case to a favorable resolution for her biotech startup client.  Dana has also briefed and argued high-profile appeals in federal and state courts across the nation.\nSince 2022, Chambers USA has recognized Dana as one of the top ERISA litigators in the nation.  Legal500 says that she is “unmatched in her ability to quickly ingest, organize, and master an enormous amount of factual information and synthesize it into a winning narrative.”  Dana has also been listed as a leading lawyer under 40 in Benchmark Litigation and New York Law Journal.  Dana Berkowitz lawyer Partner \"She is a superlative advocate and tactician.\" Legal 500, 2025 \"She's the full package: smart, good on her feet, dogged and fierce in all the right ways.\" Chambers USA, 2025 Ranked in \"ERISA Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs (Nationwide)\" Chambers USA, 2022-25 Future Star Benchmark Litigation, 2023 40 and Under Hot List Benchmark Litigation, 2021-2022, 2024 Rising Star New York Law Journal, 2018 Princeton University  Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Central District of California California New York American Bar Association, Employee Benefits Committee Parties Confidential. Lead counsel to behavioral health company in rate dispute with major payor. Resolved after service of draft complaint for $30 million more than prior offer. Hammell v. Pilot Products, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in ERISA pension dispute. Won more than 90 percent of relief sought including over $1M in attorneys’ fees. Lead trial counsel to American biotech startup in nine-figure federal trade secrets litigation and international arbitration relating to next-generation COVID-19 vaccine. Matter resolved on favorable terms. Grasshopper House LLC v. Clean \u0026amp; Sober Media LLC. First-chaired bench trial on equitable relief after adverse jury verdict in Lanham Act case against well-known treatment facility, where plaintiff sought $195M. Court found unclean hands and awarded $0 to plaintiff. Parties Confidential. Resolved dispute on behalf of hospital against independent physician organization on eve of trial for double amount of claimed loss. In re Creative Care. First-chaired four-week administrative trial against California in license revocation action. Secured complete defense victory for substance abuse treatment facility client. Lead trial counsel in franchise arbitration against international coffeehouse chain. Awarded full amount of claimed loss. Bechard v. Brody. Successfully briefed and argued California appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration in dispute involving Michael Avenatti and Republican fundraiser Elliott Brody.","searchable_name":"Dana Berkowitz","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426841,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5738,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"craig-bessenger","email":"cbessenger@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment on behalf of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emovie studio, directors, and producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor movie studio\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor media company\u003c/strong\u003e, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclosely held corporation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented publicly-traded\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in numerous class actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforeign national\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebank directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproducer of high-quality automotive images\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bessenger","nick_name":"Craig","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"2010 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Craig","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2006-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"H.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment on behalf of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emovie studio, directors, and producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor movie studio\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor media company\u003c/strong\u003e, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclosely held corporation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented publicly-traded\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in numerous class actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforeign national\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebank directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproducer of high-quality automotive images\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8096}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:19.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:19.000Z","searchable_text":"Bessenger{{ FIELD }}Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the movie studio, directors, and producer involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a major movie studio against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal.{{ FIELD }}Defeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a major media company, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a closely held corporation.{{ FIELD }}Represented publicly-traded healthcare company in numerous class actions.{{ FIELD }}Represented a foreign national in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.{{ FIELD }}Represented bank directors in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.{{ FIELD }}Represented a medical device manufacturer in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.{{ FIELD }}Represented a producer of high-quality automotive images in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Craig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations. Partner Brown University  University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California District of Columbia Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the movie studio, directors, and producer involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case. Successfully defended a major movie studio against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal. Defeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a major media company, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal. Achieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a closely held corporation. Represented publicly-traded healthcare company in numerous class actions. Represented a foreign national in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations. Represented bank directors in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities. Represented a medical device manufacturer in an investigation by state regulatory authorities. Represented a producer of high-quality automotive images in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.","searchable_name":"Craig H. Bessenger","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":445617,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7308,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael Bittner is an intellectual property trial lawyer, with an emphasis on patent litigation. He is recognized for being \u0026ldquo;superb at working up cases and delivering them in the right key for district court, Federal Circuit, and PTAB judges\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003e(IAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, 2020). Michael has extensive experience across a wide array of technologies and has also been recognized for his patent litigation work by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation (plaintiffs and defendants), including performing pre-filing investigations, handling complex discovery, preparing for and presenting at \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings, working with fact and expert witnesses, preparing and presenting the case for dispositive motions and trial, and through appeal. He represents clients in a wide variety of technologies, including telecommunications, networking, financial services, and data management. Michael also focuses on cases adjudicating whether royalties for standard essential patent portfolios comply with FRAND/RAND obligations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael has been recognized in the area of Intellectual Property: Texas in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e (2022\u0026ndash;2025) and as a \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Up and Coming Practitioner\u0026rdquo; (2019, 2021). He is listed as a \u0026ldquo;Key Lawyer\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e in the area of Patents: Litigation (2021, 2025), recognized in the \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e (2019\u0026ndash;2025), named to \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation US\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;40 \u0026amp; Under List\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property (2017\u0026ndash;2020), and named as a \u0026ldquo;Rising Star\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property Litigation for \u003cem\u003eTexas Super Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e (2015\u0026ndash;2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael also has extensive experience representing clients in other intellectual property disputes, including trademark, trade dress, and trade secret litigation. He has represented both Fortune 500 and small-to-medium sized business in disputes ranging from fixed fee brand enforcement actions and multimillion-dollar \u0026ldquo;bet the business\u0026rdquo; cases.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-bittner","email":"mbittner@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC\u003c/em\u003e (N.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCaptivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (D. Neb.) \u0026ndash; Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEricsson, et al. v. LG, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG\u0026rsquo;s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e (E.D.Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eeDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees based on an exceptional case finding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bittner","nick_name":"Michael","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable David J. Folsom, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2008 - 2009"}],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"with honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2008-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026 Patent Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“40 \u0026 Under List” in Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020"},{"title":"Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021–2025"},{"title":"“Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025"},{"title":"Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025"},{"title":"Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 "},{"title":"“Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015–2018"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bittner-2a796295/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael Bittner is an intellectual property trial lawyer, with an emphasis on patent litigation. He is recognized for being \u0026ldquo;superb at working up cases and delivering them in the right key for district court, Federal Circuit, and PTAB judges\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003e(IAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, 2020). Michael has extensive experience across a wide array of technologies and has also been recognized for his patent litigation work by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation (plaintiffs and defendants), including performing pre-filing investigations, handling complex discovery, preparing for and presenting at \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings, working with fact and expert witnesses, preparing and presenting the case for dispositive motions and trial, and through appeal. He represents clients in a wide variety of technologies, including telecommunications, networking, financial services, and data management. Michael also focuses on cases adjudicating whether royalties for standard essential patent portfolios comply with FRAND/RAND obligations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael has been recognized in the area of Intellectual Property: Texas in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e (2022\u0026ndash;2025) and as a \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Up and Coming Practitioner\u0026rdquo; (2019, 2021). He is listed as a \u0026ldquo;Key Lawyer\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e in the area of Patents: Litigation (2021, 2025), recognized in the \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e (2019\u0026ndash;2025), named to \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation US\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;40 \u0026amp; Under List\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property (2017\u0026ndash;2020), and named as a \u0026ldquo;Rising Star\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property Litigation for \u003cem\u003eTexas Super Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e (2015\u0026ndash;2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael also has extensive experience representing clients in other intellectual property disputes, including trademark, trade dress, and trade secret litigation. He has represented both Fortune 500 and small-to-medium sized business in disputes ranging from fixed fee brand enforcement actions and multimillion-dollar \u0026ldquo;bet the business\u0026rdquo; cases.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC\u003c/em\u003e (N.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCaptivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (D. Neb.) \u0026ndash; Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEricsson, et al. v. LG, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG\u0026rsquo;s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e (E.D.Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eeDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees based on an exceptional case finding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026 Patent Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“40 \u0026 Under List” in Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020"},{"title":"Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021–2025"},{"title":"“Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025"},{"title":"Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025"},{"title":"Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 "},{"title":"“Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015–2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13352}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-05T19:50:22.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-05T19:50:22.000Z","searchable_text":"Bittner{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026amp; Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2022–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Future Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“40 \u0026amp; Under List” in Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2021–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2019–2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2015–2018\"}{{ FIELD }}SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC (N.D. Tex.) – Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal.{{ FIELD }}Captivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al. (D. Neb.) – Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting.{{ FIELD }}Ericsson, et al. v. LG, et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG’s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology.{{ FIELD }}Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al (E.D.Tex.) – Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial.{{ FIELD }}YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) – Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice and an award of attorneys’ fees based on an exceptional case finding.{{ FIELD }}Clear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice.{{ FIELD }}GeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants (E.D. Tex.) – Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Michael Bittner is an intellectual property trial lawyer, with an emphasis on patent litigation. He is recognized for being “superb at working up cases and delivering them in the right key for district court, Federal Circuit, and PTAB judges” (IAM Patent 1000, 2020). Michael has extensive experience across a wide array of technologies and has also been recognized for his patent litigation work by Chambers USA and The Legal 500 US.\nMichael is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation (plaintiffs and defendants), including performing pre-filing investigations, handling complex discovery, preparing for and presenting at Markman hearings, working with fact and expert witnesses, preparing and presenting the case for dispositive motions and trial, and through appeal. He represents clients in a wide variety of technologies, including telecommunications, networking, financial services, and data management. Michael also focuses on cases adjudicating whether royalties for standard essential patent portfolios comply with FRAND/RAND obligations.\nMichael has been recognized in the area of Intellectual Property: Texas in Chambers USA (2022–2025) and as a Chambers USA “Up and Coming Practitioner” (2019, 2021). He is listed as a “Key Lawyer” in The Legal 500 US in the area of Patents: Litigation (2021, 2025), recognized in the IAM Patent 1000 (2019–2025), named to Benchmark Litigation US’s “40 \u0026amp; Under List” in Intellectual Property (2017–2020), and named as a “Rising Star” in Intellectual Property Litigation for Texas Super Lawyers (2015–2020).\nMichael also has extensive experience representing clients in other intellectual property disputes, including trademark, trade dress, and trade secret litigation. He has represented both Fortune 500 and small-to-medium sized business in disputes ranging from fixed fee brand enforcement actions and multimillion-dollar “bet the business” cases. Partner Litigation – Intellectual Property The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026 Litigation – Patent The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026 “500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026amp; Patent Litigation Lawdragon, 2022–2026 “Future Star” Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026 “40 \u0026amp; Under List” in Intellectual Property Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020 Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2021–2025 “Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2019–2021 “Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025 Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach” IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection” IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025  “Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas Super Lawyers, 2015–2018 University of Texas  The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Texas Law Clerk, Honorable David J. Folsom, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC (N.D. Tex.) – Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal. Captivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al. (D. Neb.) – Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting. Ericsson, et al. v. LG, et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG’s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology. Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al (E.D.Tex.) – Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial. YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) – Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms. eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice and an award of attorneys’ fees based on an exceptional case finding. Clear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice. GeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants (E.D. Tex.) – Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.","searchable_name":"Michael A. Bittner","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"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":445658,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":679,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePat Brumbaugh represents attorneys and accountants when their most valuable asset is on the line: their reputation. Pat\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on the representation of other professionals and their firms in all manner of litigation and in regulatory investigations and proceedings. A partner in our Professional Liability and Securities Enforcement and Regulation practices, Pat is both a seasoned litigator and a trusted counselor.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePat has represented issuers, accounting firms and underwriters in all manner of class action securities and shareholder derivative litigation. In addition, he has conducted internal investigations and represented clients before the Securities and Exchange Commission. In professional liability matters, Pat has represented other \u0026ldquo;Big Law\u0026rdquo; law firms and Big Four accounting firms in professional malpractice and related litigation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePat also serves as King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Co-General Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"john-p-brumbaugh","email":"pbrumbaugh@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 404 664 2726","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended a l\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003earge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e in legal malpractice lawsuit arising from a commercial real estate transaction. Most of the case against the firm was dismissed on summary judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e against legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the sale of a company and related litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFlorida law firm\u003c/strong\u003e against allegations of fraud stemming from the firm\u0026rsquo;s representation of a client in bankruptcy proceedings. The court dismissed the law firm from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a legal malpractice action relating to the firm\u0026rsquo;s patent prosecution practice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBig 4\u003c/strong\u003e accounting firm in multi-year SEC investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel in\u0026nbsp;the Delaware Court of Chancery of a dispute concerning the winding up of a Delaware limited liability company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a Fortune 50 company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in securities class action litigation and related shareholder derivative litigation filed in state and federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended an Atlanta-based health care company and the former members of its board of directors in class action litigation challenging the company\u0026rsquo;s acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an underwriting syndicate of major investment banks in securities class action litigation in federal court stemming from a secondary offering underwritten by the banks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client\u003c/strong\u003e on appeal from the denial of the client's federal habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, overturning the client's conviction for kidnapping, on the ground that his appellate counsel on direct appeal was constitutionally ineffective.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":10}]},"expertise":[{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":684,"guid":"684.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":685,"guid":"685.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":686,"guid":"686.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brumbaugh","nick_name":"John","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Peter T. Fay, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"1997 - 1998"}],"first_name":"John","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":119,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePat Brumbaugh represents attorneys and accountants when their most valuable asset is on the line: their reputation. Pat\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on the representation of other professionals and their firms in all manner of litigation and in regulatory investigations and proceedings. A partner in our Professional Liability and Securities Enforcement and Regulation practices, Pat is both a seasoned litigator and a trusted counselor.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePat has represented issuers, accounting firms and underwriters in all manner of class action securities and shareholder derivative litigation. In addition, he has conducted internal investigations and represented clients before the Securities and Exchange Commission. In professional liability matters, Pat has represented other \u0026ldquo;Big Law\u0026rdquo; law firms and Big Four accounting firms in professional malpractice and related litigation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePat also serves as King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Co-General Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended a l\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003earge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e in legal malpractice lawsuit arising from a commercial real estate transaction. Most of the case against the firm was dismissed on summary judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e against legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the sale of a company and related litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFlorida law firm\u003c/strong\u003e against allegations of fraud stemming from the firm\u0026rsquo;s representation of a client in bankruptcy proceedings. The court dismissed the law firm from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a legal malpractice action relating to the firm\u0026rsquo;s patent prosecution practice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBig 4\u003c/strong\u003e accounting firm in multi-year SEC investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel in\u0026nbsp;the Delaware Court of Chancery of a dispute concerning the winding up of a Delaware limited liability company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a Fortune 50 company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in securities class action litigation and related shareholder derivative litigation filed in state and federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended an Atlanta-based health care company and the former members of its board of directors in class action litigation challenging the company\u0026rsquo;s acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an underwriting syndicate of major investment banks in securities class action litigation in federal court stemming from a secondary offering underwritten by the banks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client\u003c/strong\u003e on appeal from the denial of the client's federal habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, overturning the client's conviction for kidnapping, on the ground that his appellate counsel on direct appeal was constitutionally ineffective.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4193}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-06T22:06:07.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-06T22:06:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Brumbaugh{{ FIELD }}Defended a large Southeastern law firm in legal malpractice lawsuit arising from a commercial real estate transaction. Most of the case against the firm was dismissed on summary judgment.{{ FIELD }}Defended a large Southeastern law firm against legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the sale of a company and related litigation.{{ FIELD }}Defended a Florida law firm against allegations of fraud stemming from the firm’s representation of a client in bankruptcy proceedings. The court dismissed the law firm from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.{{ FIELD }}Defended a large Southeastern law firm in a legal malpractice action relating to the firm’s patent prosecution practice.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Big 4 accounting firm in multi-year SEC investigation.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel in the Delaware Court of Chancery of a dispute concerning the winding up of a Delaware limited liability company.{{ FIELD }}Defended a Fortune 50 company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in securities class action litigation and related shareholder derivative litigation filed in state and federal court.{{ FIELD }}Defended an Atlanta-based health care company and the former members of its board of directors in class action litigation challenging the company’s acquisition.{{ FIELD }}Represented an underwriting syndicate of major investment banks in securities class action litigation in federal court stemming from a secondary offering underwritten by the banks.{{ FIELD }}Represented a pro bono client on appeal from the denial of the client's federal habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, overturning the client's conviction for kidnapping, on the ground that his appellate counsel on direct appeal was constitutionally ineffective.{{ FIELD }}Pat Brumbaugh represents attorneys and accountants when their most valuable asset is on the line: their reputation. Pat’s practice focuses on the representation of other professionals and their firms in all manner of litigation and in regulatory investigations and proceedings. A partner in our Professional Liability and Securities Enforcement and Regulation practices, Pat is both a seasoned litigator and a trusted counselor.\nPat has represented issuers, accounting firms and underwriters in all manner of class action securities and shareholder derivative litigation. In addition, he has conducted internal investigations and represented clients before the Securities and Exchange Commission. In professional liability matters, Pat has represented other “Big Law” law firms and Big Four accounting firms in professional malpractice and related litigation\nPat also serves as King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Co-General Counsel. John Pat Brumbaugh Partner / General Counsel Dartmouth College  University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Florida Georgia State Bar of Georgia The Florida Bar Law Clerk, Hon. Peter T. Fay, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Defended a large Southeastern law firm in legal malpractice lawsuit arising from a commercial real estate transaction. Most of the case against the firm was dismissed on summary judgment. Defended a large Southeastern law firm against legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the sale of a company and related litigation. Defended a Florida law firm against allegations of fraud stemming from the firm’s representation of a client in bankruptcy proceedings. The court dismissed the law firm from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defended a large Southeastern law firm in a legal malpractice action relating to the firm’s patent prosecution practice. Represented a Big 4 accounting firm in multi-year SEC investigation. Served as lead trial counsel in the Delaware Court of Chancery of a dispute concerning the winding up of a Delaware limited liability company. Defended a Fortune 50 company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in securities class action litigation and related shareholder derivative litigation filed in state and federal court. Defended an Atlanta-based health care company and the former members of its board of directors in class action litigation challenging the company’s acquisition. Represented an underwriting syndicate of major investment banks in securities class action litigation in federal court stemming from a secondary offering underwritten by the banks. Represented a pro bono client on appeal from the denial of the client's federal habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, overturning the client's conviction for kidnapping, on the ground that his appellate counsel on direct appeal was constitutionally ineffective.","searchable_name":"John P. Brumbaugh","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447510,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5781,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003e\"Simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscapes, analysis and strategies.\u0026rdquo; - IAM Patent 1000. Shane views each engagement in the context of his\u0026nbsp;client's business as a whole.\u0026nbsp;He\u0026nbsp;works closely with his client\u0026nbsp;to first assess the risk or value associated with a particular matter and then to develop a strategy for\u0026nbsp;aggressively pursuing his client's rights while never losing sight of the larger context of his client's overarching business.\u0026nbsp;Shane has proven particularly adept at identifying and exploiting the other side\u0026rsquo;s weaknesses early in the case to position his clients for victory prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;has served as lead counsel for companies such as Google, F5,\u0026nbsp;Fitbit, Mandiant, Nikon, Hitachi, Kodak, and\u0026nbsp;Kodiak Robotics\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;patent, trade secret, employee mobility and a\u0026nbsp;wide range\u0026nbsp;of commercial litigation and counseling matters. Shane also works with early-stage companies to identify, secure\u0026nbsp;and protect\u0026nbsp;trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark assets, including serving as a mentor attorney to startup companies\u0026nbsp;through the Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane devotes significant time to pro bono education rights litigation. He is currently lead counsel for a class of students with reading disabilities, including dyslexia, in a class action lawsuit against the Berkeley Unified School District. After four years of litigation, the parties reached a court-brokered settlement, including a Literacy Improvement Plan effecting a complete overhaul of BUSD's processes and programs for identifying, teaching and supporting children with reading disabilities. Shane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;sits on the Board for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Los Angeles\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"shane-brun","email":"sbrun@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a cybersecurity company against a competitor\u0026rsquo;s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brun","nick_name":"Shane","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Shane","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Cited by client as \" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\"","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2017"},{"title":"Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor","detail":"The National Law Journal"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003e\"Simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscapes, analysis and strategies.\u0026rdquo; - IAM Patent 1000. Shane views each engagement in the context of his\u0026nbsp;client's business as a whole.\u0026nbsp;He\u0026nbsp;works closely with his client\u0026nbsp;to first assess the risk or value associated with a particular matter and then to develop a strategy for\u0026nbsp;aggressively pursuing his client's rights while never losing sight of the larger context of his client's overarching business.\u0026nbsp;Shane has proven particularly adept at identifying and exploiting the other side\u0026rsquo;s weaknesses early in the case to position his clients for victory prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;has served as lead counsel for companies such as Google, F5,\u0026nbsp;Fitbit, Mandiant, Nikon, Hitachi, Kodak, and\u0026nbsp;Kodiak Robotics\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;patent, trade secret, employee mobility and a\u0026nbsp;wide range\u0026nbsp;of commercial litigation and counseling matters. Shane also works with early-stage companies to identify, secure\u0026nbsp;and protect\u0026nbsp;trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark assets, including serving as a mentor attorney to startup companies\u0026nbsp;through the Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane devotes significant time to pro bono education rights litigation. He is currently lead counsel for a class of students with reading disabilities, including dyslexia, in a class action lawsuit against the Berkeley Unified School District. After four years of litigation, the parties reached a court-brokered settlement, including a Literacy Improvement Plan effecting a complete overhaul of BUSD's processes and programs for identifying, teaching and supporting children with reading disabilities. Shane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;sits on the Board for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Los Angeles\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a cybersecurity company against a competitor\u0026rsquo;s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Cited by client as \" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\"","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2017"},{"title":"Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor","detail":"The National Law Journal"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8412},{"id":8412}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-14T09:32:06.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-14T09:32:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Brun{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Cited by client as \\\" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The National Law Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}Defended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations.{{ FIELD }}Defended a cybersecurity company against a competitor’s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims.{{ FIELD }}Defended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case.{{ FIELD }}Defended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims.{{ FIELD }}Hired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client.{{ FIELD }}Defended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action.{{ FIELD }}Represented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.{{ FIELD }}\"Simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscapes, analysis and strategies.” - IAM Patent 1000. Shane views each engagement in the context of his client's business as a whole. He works closely with his client to first assess the risk or value associated with a particular matter and then to develop a strategy for aggressively pursuing his client's rights while never losing sight of the larger context of his client's overarching business. Shane has proven particularly adept at identifying and exploiting the other side’s weaknesses early in the case to position his clients for victory prior to trial.\nShane has served as lead counsel for companies such as Google, F5, Fitbit, Mandiant, Nikon, Hitachi, Kodak, and Kodiak Robotics in patent, trade secret, employee mobility and a wide range of commercial litigation and counseling matters. Shane also works with early-stage companies to identify, secure and protect trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark assets, including serving as a mentor attorney to startup companies through the Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley.\nShane devotes significant time to pro bono education rights litigation. He is currently lead counsel for a class of students with reading disabilities, including dyslexia, in a class action lawsuit against the Berkeley Unified School District. After four years of litigation, the parties reached a court-brokered settlement, including a Literacy Improvement Plan effecting a complete overhaul of BUSD's processes and programs for identifying, teaching and supporting children with reading disabilities. Shane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\nShane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.  \nShane sits on the Board for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Los Angeles Partner Cited by client as \" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\" IAM Patent 1000 Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals IAM Patent 1000, 2017 Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor The National Law Journal University of Arkansas University of Arkansas School of Law University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 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 Member, International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association Member, San Francisco Bar Association Board member, Western Center on Law \u0026amp; Poverty Member, Educational Foundation of Orinda and Arkansas Alumni Association Defended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations. Defended a cybersecurity company against a competitor’s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims. Defended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case. Defended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims. Hired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client. Represented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial. Represented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client. Defended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action. Represented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.","searchable_name":"Shane Brun","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}]}}