{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"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 / 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 Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"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 Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"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":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":"19","capability_id":null,"extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"id":447781,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":4211,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJoe Akrotirianakis is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He is an accomplished trial lawyer who has first-chaired or co-chaired 35\u0026nbsp;trials and arbitrations.\u0026nbsp; He has never lost a jury trial or bench trial.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad spectrum of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, and international shipping, transportation and logistics, among others.\u0026nbsp; A seasoned commercial litigator, and a decorated former federal prosecutor, Mr. Akrotirianakis has litigated matters of the most complex and difficult caliber throughout his more than 25-year career.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout California and nationally in matters involving complex commercial litigation, unfair competition, business torts, intellectual property, and federal and state regulatory investigations and defense. His work prosecuting and defending matters involving cutting-edge legal theories in high-profile matters brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Lanham Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and similar laws in other states has been repeatedly recognized in the legal press and mainstream media.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis is individually recommended by Chambers in the category of Litigation: General Commercial (California).\u0026nbsp; He has been named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" (\u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" nationally (\u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e), \"Recommended\" in the category of General Commercial Disputes (\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), a \"Litigation Star\" in California and nationally (\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, 2023), an \"Innovative Practitioner\" (\u003cem\u003eFinancial Times\u003c/em\u003e, 2022), and an legal \"MVP\" in the transportation industry (\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e), in addition to other honors received from\u0026nbsp;the \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe Recorder\u003c/em\u003e, and other publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, investigating and prosecuting complex fraud and financial crimes, political and law enforcement corruption, civil rights matters, racketeering, and various other violations of federal law, including the CFAA.\u0026nbsp; Following law school, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as a Law Clerk to the late Judge Harry Pregerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis was elected to the firm's Policy Committee in December 2021.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"joseph-akrotirianakis","email":"jakro@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s decision \u0026ldquo;would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute\u0026rsquo;s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients\u0026rsquo; favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company\u0026rsquo;s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing \u0026ldquo;compounded\u0026rdquo; drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of North America\u0026rsquo;s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business \u0026ldquo;divorce\u0026rdquo; from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents the U.S. West Coast\u0026rsquo;s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the \u0026ldquo;West Coast Port Slowdown.\u0026rdquo; After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be \u0026ldquo;constructively\u0026rdquo; closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company\u0026rsquo;s former employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented California\u0026rsquo;s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the world\u0026rsquo;s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.\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":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":125,"guid":"125.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1205,"guid":"1205.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Akrotirianakis","nick_name":"Joe","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Harry Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","years_held":"1998 - 1999"}],"first_name":"Joseph","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2895,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude \u0026 Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1998-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“He is very thorough and very well experienced.” - Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025"},{"title":"“Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential outcomes.” -  Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025"},{"title":"Legal Lion of the Week","detail":"Law360, April 10, 2026"},{"title":"Named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\"","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024"},{"title":"Named among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" (nationally)","detail":"Daily Journal, 2024"},{"title":"The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present"},{"title":"Listed as \"Recommended\" in category of General Commercial Disputes","detail":"Legal 500 U.S., 2022 - present"},{"title":"Litigation Star (National)","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"California Litigation Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"Shortlisted as an \"Innovative Practitioner\"","detail":"Financial Times, 2022"},{"title":"Named as the only \"Plaintiff Trailblazer\" at a large law firm","detail":"National Law Journal, 2022"},{"title":"Named a \"Trailblazer: West\"","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Named a \"California Trailblazer\"","detail":"The Recorder, 2020"},{"title":"Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Lawyers","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020"},{"title":"Named among \"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\" across all practice areas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017"},{"title":"Law360 \"MVP,\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry","detail":"Law360, 2016"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/joseph-akrotirianakis-78bb3269/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJoe Akrotirianakis is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He is an accomplished trial lawyer who has first-chaired or co-chaired 35\u0026nbsp;trials and arbitrations.\u0026nbsp; He has never lost a jury trial or bench trial.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad spectrum of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, and international shipping, transportation and logistics, among others.\u0026nbsp; A seasoned commercial litigator, and a decorated former federal prosecutor, Mr. Akrotirianakis has litigated matters of the most complex and difficult caliber throughout his more than 25-year career.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout California and nationally in matters involving complex commercial litigation, unfair competition, business torts, intellectual property, and federal and state regulatory investigations and defense. His work prosecuting and defending matters involving cutting-edge legal theories in high-profile matters brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Lanham Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and similar laws in other states has been repeatedly recognized in the legal press and mainstream media.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis is individually recommended by Chambers in the category of Litigation: General Commercial (California).\u0026nbsp; He has been named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" (\u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" nationally (\u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e), \"Recommended\" in the category of General Commercial Disputes (\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), a \"Litigation Star\" in California and nationally (\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, 2023), an \"Innovative Practitioner\" (\u003cem\u003eFinancial Times\u003c/em\u003e, 2022), and an legal \"MVP\" in the transportation industry (\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e), in addition to other honors received from\u0026nbsp;the \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe Recorder\u003c/em\u003e, and other publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, investigating and prosecuting complex fraud and financial crimes, political and law enforcement corruption, civil rights matters, racketeering, and various other violations of federal law, including the CFAA.\u0026nbsp; Following law school, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as a Law Clerk to the late Judge Harry Pregerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis was elected to the firm's Policy Committee in December 2021.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s decision \u0026ldquo;would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute\u0026rsquo;s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients\u0026rsquo; favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company\u0026rsquo;s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing \u0026ldquo;compounded\u0026rdquo; drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of North America\u0026rsquo;s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business \u0026ldquo;divorce\u0026rdquo; from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents the U.S. West Coast\u0026rsquo;s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the \u0026ldquo;West Coast Port Slowdown.\u0026rdquo; After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be \u0026ldquo;constructively\u0026rdquo; closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company\u0026rsquo;s former employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented California\u0026rsquo;s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the world\u0026rsquo;s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“He is very thorough and very well experienced.” - Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025"},{"title":"“Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential outcomes.” -  Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025"},{"title":"Legal Lion of the Week","detail":"Law360, April 10, 2026"},{"title":"Named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\"","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024"},{"title":"Named among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" (nationally)","detail":"Daily Journal, 2024"},{"title":"The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present"},{"title":"Listed as \"Recommended\" in category of General Commercial Disputes","detail":"Legal 500 U.S., 2022 - present"},{"title":"Litigation Star (National)","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"California Litigation Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"Shortlisted as an \"Innovative Practitioner\"","detail":"Financial Times, 2022"},{"title":"Named as the only \"Plaintiff Trailblazer\" at a large law firm","detail":"National Law Journal, 2022"},{"title":"Named a \"Trailblazer: West\"","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Named a \"California Trailblazer\"","detail":"The Recorder, 2020"},{"title":"Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Lawyers","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020"},{"title":"Named among \"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\" across all practice areas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017"},{"title":"Law360 \"MVP,\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry","detail":"Law360, 2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11424}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-22T19:10:25.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-22T19:10:25.000Z","searchable_text":"Akrotirianakis{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is very thorough and very well experienced.” - Litigation: General Commercial\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential outcomes.” -  Litigation: General Commercial\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal Lion of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, April 10, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named among Los Angeles' \\\"Top 100 Lawyers\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named among 50 \\\"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\\\" (nationally)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed as \\\"Recommended\\\" in category of General Commercial Disputes\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 U.S., 2022 - present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Star (National)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"California Litigation Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Shortlisted as an \\\"Innovative Practitioner\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Financial Times, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as the only \\\"Plaintiff Trailblazer\\\" at a large law firm\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a \\\"Trailblazer: West\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Lawyer, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a \\\"California Trailblazer\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Recorder, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named among \\\"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\\\" across all practice areas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 \\\"MVP,\\\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}As lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California’s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial.{{ FIELD }}As trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia.{{ FIELD }}As lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB’s decision “would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.”{{ FIELD }}As co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute’s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients’ favor.{{ FIELD }}As lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney’s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut.{{ FIELD }}As lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation’s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney’s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest.{{ FIELD }}Represent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company’s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity.{{ FIELD }}Represented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing “compounded” drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law.{{ FIELD }}The action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\nRepresented one of North America’s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s unlawful business practices.\nAs lead counsel, represented one of the world’s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business “divorce” from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world’s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\nRepresents the U.S. West Coast’s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\nAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\nDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the “West Coast Port Slowdown.” After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be “constructively” closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\nPersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\nPersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client’s favor.{{ FIELD }}Persuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\nRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\nServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\nRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\nRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company’s former employees.\nRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\nRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\nRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented California’s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented the world’s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.{{ FIELD }}Joe Akrotirianakis is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice Group.  He is an accomplished trial lawyer who has first-chaired or co-chaired 35 trials and arbitrations.  He has never lost a jury trial or bench trial.  Mr. Akrotirianakis represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad spectrum of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, and international shipping, transportation and logistics, among others.  A seasoned commercial litigator, and a decorated former federal prosecutor, Mr. Akrotirianakis has litigated matters of the most complex and difficult caliber throughout his more than 25-year career. \nMr. Akrotirianakis regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout California and nationally in matters involving complex commercial litigation, unfair competition, business torts, intellectual property, and federal and state regulatory investigations and defense. His work prosecuting and defending matters involving cutting-edge legal theories in high-profile matters brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Lanham Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and similar laws in other states has been repeatedly recognized in the legal press and mainstream media.  Mr. Akrotirianakis is individually recommended by Chambers in the category of Litigation: General Commercial (California).  He has been named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" (Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024), among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" nationally (Daily Journal), \"Recommended\" in the category of General Commercial Disputes (Legal 500 U.S., 2024), a \"Litigation Star\" in California and nationally (Benchmark Litigation, 2023), an \"Innovative Practitioner\" (Financial Times, 2022), and an legal \"MVP\" in the transportation industry (Law360), in addition to other honors received from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, The Recorder, and other publications.\nBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, investigating and prosecuting complex fraud and financial crimes, political and law enforcement corruption, civil rights matters, racketeering, and various other violations of federal law, including the CFAA.  Following law school, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as a Law Clerk to the late Judge Harry Pregerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nMr. Akrotirianakis was elected to the firm's Policy Committee in December 2021.  \n  Partner “He is very thorough and very well experienced.” - Litigation: General Commercial Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025 “Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential outcomes.” -  Litigation: General Commercial Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025 Legal Lion of the Week Law360, April 10, 2026 Named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024 Named among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" (nationally) Daily Journal, 2024 The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation  The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present Listed as \"Recommended\" in category of General Commercial Disputes Legal 500 U.S., 2022 - present Litigation Star (National) Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present California Litigation Star Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present Shortlisted as an \"Innovative Practitioner\" Financial Times, 2022 Named as the only \"Plaintiff Trailblazer\" at a large law firm National Law Journal, 2022 Named a \"Trailblazer: West\" The American Lawyer, 2021 Named a \"California Trailblazer\" The Recorder, 2020 Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Lawyers Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020 Named among \"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\" across all practice areas Super Lawyers, 2017 Law360 \"MVP,\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry Law360, 2016 Whittier College Whittier Law School Loyola Law School Loyola Law School Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 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 District of Oregon U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida California Law Clerk, Harry Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit As lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California’s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial. As trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia. As lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB’s decision “would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.” As co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute’s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients’ favor. As lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney’s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut. As lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation’s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial. Represented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney’s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest. Represent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company’s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity. Represented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing “compounded” drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law. The action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\nRepresented one of North America’s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s unlawful business practices.\nAs lead counsel, represented one of the world’s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business “divorce” from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world’s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\nRepresents the U.S. West Coast’s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\nAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\nDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the “West Coast Port Slowdown.” After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be “constructively” closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\nPersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\nPersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client’s favor. Persuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\nRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\nServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\nRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\nRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company’s former employees.\nRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\nRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\nRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented California’s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented the world’s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.","searchable_name":"Joseph Akrotirianakis (Joe)","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":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":436483,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5129,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLisa Bugni is a partner in the firm's Securities and Shareholder Litigation practice. Her practice focuses on a variety of securities litigation matters and other complex commercial and business-related litigation. Ms. Bugni has experience in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative suits, M\u0026amp;A litigation, appraisal actions, and post-closing transaction disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Bugni received her J.D., magna cum laude, in 2003 from the University of Miami School of Law, where she was elected to membership in the Order of the Coif and served as articles and comments editor for the University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. She received her B.A.,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e, in American Studies from the University of Notre Dame in 2000.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Bugni is admitted to practice before the state courts of California, Georgia and Florida, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Georgia, and the Southern District of Florida. She is a member of the Georgia Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association and the Atlanta Bar Association.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lisa-bugni","email":"lbugni@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 404 934 0565","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefeated a shareholder\u0026rsquo;s attempt to enjoin Apple\u0026rsquo;s merger with fingerprint sensor company, AuthenTec.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action brought against an international power company and its directors and officers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed in a post-closing transaction arbitration for a large home improvement specialty retailer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated in arbitration a claimant\u0026rsquo;s request for tens of millions of dollars for alleged breach of a product development contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of an action brought by a former executive arising out of a merger.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of a consumer class action alleging false advertising.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as counsel in several securities class actions to companies, directors and officers, including multiple heath care companies, a large packaging company, a consumer products company, and a technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as counsel in several M\u0026amp;A litigation matters to companies, directors and officers, including matters involving technology, banking, consumer products, and health care companies.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bugni","nick_name":"Lisa","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Magistrate Stephen T. Brown, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida","years_held":"2001"}],"first_name":"Lisa","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":2236,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2003-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLisa Bugni is a partner in the firm's Securities and Shareholder Litigation practice. Her practice focuses on a variety of securities litigation matters and other complex commercial and business-related litigation. Ms. Bugni has experience in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative suits, M\u0026amp;A litigation, appraisal actions, and post-closing transaction disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Bugni received her J.D., magna cum laude, in 2003 from the University of Miami School of Law, where she was elected to membership in the Order of the Coif and served as articles and comments editor for the University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. She received her B.A.,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e, in American Studies from the University of Notre Dame in 2000.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Bugni is admitted to practice before the state courts of California, Georgia and Florida, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Georgia, and the Southern District of Florida. She is a member of the Georgia Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association and the Atlanta Bar Association.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefeated a shareholder\u0026rsquo;s attempt to enjoin Apple\u0026rsquo;s merger with fingerprint sensor company, AuthenTec.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action brought against an international power company and its directors and officers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed in a post-closing transaction arbitration for a large home improvement specialty retailer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated in arbitration a claimant\u0026rsquo;s request for tens of millions of dollars for alleged breach of a product development contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of an action brought by a former executive arising out of a merger.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of a consumer class action alleging false advertising.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as counsel in several securities class actions to companies, directors and officers, including multiple heath care companies, a large packaging company, a consumer products company, and a technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as counsel in several M\u0026amp;A litigation matters to companies, directors and officers, including matters involving technology, banking, consumer products, and health care companies.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5918}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:55:38.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:55:38.000Z","searchable_text":"Bugni{{ FIELD }}Defeated a shareholder’s attempt to enjoin Apple’s merger with fingerprint sensor company, AuthenTec.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action brought against an international power company and its directors and officers.{{ FIELD }}Prevailed in a post-closing transaction arbitration for a large home improvement specialty retailer.{{ FIELD }}Defeated in arbitration a claimant’s request for tens of millions of dollars for alleged breach of a product development contract.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal with prejudice of an action brought by a former executive arising out of a merger. {{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a consumer class action alleging false advertising.{{ FIELD }}Served as counsel in several securities class actions to companies, directors and officers, including multiple heath care companies, a large packaging company, a consumer products company, and a technology company.{{ FIELD }}Served as counsel in several M\u0026amp;A litigation matters to companies, directors and officers, including matters involving technology, banking, consumer products, and health care companies.{{ FIELD }}Lisa Bugni is a partner in the firm's Securities and Shareholder Litigation practice. Her practice focuses on a variety of securities litigation matters and other complex commercial and business-related litigation. Ms. Bugni has experience in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative suits, M\u0026amp;A litigation, appraisal actions, and post-closing transaction disputes.\nMs. Bugni received her J.D., magna cum laude, in 2003 from the University of Miami School of Law, where she was elected to membership in the Order of the Coif and served as articles and comments editor for the University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. She received her B.A., magna cum laude, in American Studies from the University of Notre Dame in 2000.\nMs. Bugni is admitted to practice before the state courts of California, Georgia and Florida, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Georgia, and the Southern District of Florida. She is a member of the Georgia Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association and the Atlanta Bar Association. Partner University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Law School University of Miami University of Miami 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 Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 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 U.S. District Court for the Middle 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 California Florida Georgia Dress for Success Friends of the Children Intern, Magistrate Stephen T. Brown, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Defeated a shareholder’s attempt to enjoin Apple’s merger with fingerprint sensor company, AuthenTec. Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action brought against an international power company and its directors and officers. Prevailed in a post-closing transaction arbitration for a large home improvement specialty retailer. Defeated in arbitration a claimant’s request for tens of millions of dollars for alleged breach of a product development contract. Obtained dismissal with prejudice of an action brought by a former executive arising out of a merger.  Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a consumer class action alleging false advertising. Served as counsel in several securities class actions to companies, directors and officers, including multiple heath care companies, a large packaging company, a consumer products company, and a technology company. Served as counsel in several M\u0026amp;A litigation matters to companies, directors and officers, including matters involving technology, banking, consumer products, and health care companies.","searchable_name":"Lisa Bugni","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":445975,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3930,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAlexander Calfo has repeatedly won the most difficult and challenging\u0026nbsp;trials involving medical devices and pharmaceuticals, airplane crashes, automotive products liability, class actions, toxic tort, insurance coverage, and commercial business disputes. \u0026nbsp;He has been awarded five of the Top 10 winning first-chair trial verdicts in California by \u003cem\u003eThe Daily Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp; His verdicts have also been selected Top 5 nationally by LexisNexis, and Courtroom View Network recently named another high-profile national verdict as the \u0026ldquo;Number One Impressive Defense Victory in the United States.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Los Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;chose Alex as a 2022 Top 100 Lawyer for his legal skill, achievements, and exemplary leadership.\u0026nbsp; The award also recognized him as one of the first partners to join King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Los Angeles office and \u0026ldquo;has been instrumental in building the firm\u0026rsquo;s reputation as a west coast trial powerhouse.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex is inducted in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers, the premier trial association in North America whose members are elected to the College for demonstrating the highest standards of trial advocacy, ethical conduct, professionalism, and collegiality.\u0026nbsp;He is also a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), an invitation-only group of attorneys who have the required combination of skills, integrity, and trial experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCourtroom View Network has awarded Alex its Number One all-time \u0026ldquo;must watch\u0026rdquo; defense verdict for the entire state of California. \u0026nbsp;Alex was also named \u0026ldquo;Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; in the \u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for exceptional legal skill and achievement. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognizes him as a California Litigation Star and a Tier One National Product Liability Star. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;ranks Alex \u0026ldquo;Among the Best in Product Liability, Mass Tort and Class Actions in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe is a recipient of The Best Lawyers in America award and, in 2024, was selected by the National Trial Lawyers as a Top 100 Trial Lawyer.\u0026nbsp;He was honored as a \"Top 25 Mass Tort and Product Liability lawyer in the United States\" by the National Trial Lawyers in 2026. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex is proudly named to the Board of Trustees of Creighton University - his Law School Alma Mater.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex serves as a frequent author, speaker and presenter on a variety of trial and litigation topics.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"alexander-calfo","email":"acalfo@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Calfo","nick_name":"Alexander","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Alexander","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":518,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1991-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAlexander Calfo has repeatedly won the most difficult and challenging\u0026nbsp;trials involving medical devices and pharmaceuticals, airplane crashes, automotive products liability, class actions, toxic tort, insurance coverage, and commercial business disputes. \u0026nbsp;He has been awarded five of the Top 10 winning first-chair trial verdicts in California by \u003cem\u003eThe Daily Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp; His verdicts have also been selected Top 5 nationally by LexisNexis, and Courtroom View Network recently named another high-profile national verdict as the \u0026ldquo;Number One Impressive Defense Victory in the United States.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Los Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;chose Alex as a 2022 Top 100 Lawyer for his legal skill, achievements, and exemplary leadership.\u0026nbsp; The award also recognized him as one of the first partners to join King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Los Angeles office and \u0026ldquo;has been instrumental in building the firm\u0026rsquo;s reputation as a west coast trial powerhouse.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex is inducted in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers, the premier trial association in North America whose members are elected to the College for demonstrating the highest standards of trial advocacy, ethical conduct, professionalism, and collegiality.\u0026nbsp;He is also a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), an invitation-only group of attorneys who have the required combination of skills, integrity, and trial experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCourtroom View Network has awarded Alex its Number One all-time \u0026ldquo;must watch\u0026rdquo; defense verdict for the entire state of California. \u0026nbsp;Alex was also named \u0026ldquo;Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; in the \u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for exceptional legal skill and achievement. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognizes him as a California Litigation Star and a Tier One National Product Liability Star. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;ranks Alex \u0026ldquo;Among the Best in Product Liability, Mass Tort and Class Actions in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe is a recipient of The Best Lawyers in America award and, in 2024, was selected by the National Trial Lawyers as a Top 100 Trial Lawyer.\u0026nbsp;He was honored as a \"Top 25 Mass Tort and Product Liability lawyer in the United States\" by the National Trial Lawyers in 2026. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex is proudly named to the Board of Trustees of Creighton University - his Law School Alma Mater.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex serves as a frequent author, speaker and presenter on a variety of trial and litigation topics.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5155},{"id":5155},{"id":5155}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-19T14:43:48.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-19T14:43:48.000Z","searchable_text":"Calfo{{ FIELD }}Alexander Calfo has repeatedly won the most difficult and challenging trials involving medical devices and pharmaceuticals, airplane crashes, automotive products liability, class actions, toxic tort, insurance coverage, and commercial business disputes.  He has been awarded five of the Top 10 winning first-chair trial verdicts in California by The Daily Journal.  His verdicts have also been selected Top 5 nationally by LexisNexis, and Courtroom View Network recently named another high-profile national verdict as the “Number One Impressive Defense Victory in the United States.”  The Los Angeles Business Journal chose Alex as a 2022 Top 100 Lawyer for his legal skill, achievements, and exemplary leadership.  The award also recognized him as one of the first partners to join King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Los Angeles office and “has been instrumental in building the firm’s reputation as a west coast trial powerhouse.” \nAlex is inducted in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers, the premier trial association in North America whose members are elected to the College for demonstrating the highest standards of trial advocacy, ethical conduct, professionalism, and collegiality. He is also a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), an invitation-only group of attorneys who have the required combination of skills, integrity, and trial experience.\nCourtroom View Network has awarded Alex its Number One all-time “must watch” defense verdict for the entire state of California.  Alex was also named “Lawyer of the Year” in the Los Angeles Business Journal for exceptional legal skill and achievement.  Benchmark Litigation recognizes him as a California Litigation Star and a Tier One National Product Liability Star.  Legal 500 U.S. ranks Alex “Among the Best in Product Liability, Mass Tort and Class Actions in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation.” \nHe is a recipient of The Best Lawyers in America award and, in 2024, was selected by the National Trial Lawyers as a Top 100 Trial Lawyer. He was honored as a \"Top 25 Mass Tort and Product Liability lawyer in the United States\" by the National Trial Lawyers in 2026.  \nAlex is proudly named to the Board of Trustees of Creighton University - his Law School Alma Mater. \nAlex serves as a frequent author, speaker and presenter on a variety of trial and litigation topics. Partner Marquette University Marquette University Law School Creighton University Creighton University School 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado California American Bar Association Defense Research Institute American Board of Trial Advocates Los Angeles County Bar Association Center for International Studies","searchable_name":"Alexander Calfo","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":442354,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":121,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJack Capers is a partner focused on corporate transactions for companies in the technology and life sciences industries. He advises these companies on a broad range of domestic and cross-border corporate transactions including mergers, acquisitions, dispositions, joint ventures, strategic alliances and strategic investments, complex in-licensing and out-licensing transactions, collaboration and development agreements, and commercial contracts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe also represents clients in the consumer products, retail, industrial and manufacturing, real estate, food and beverage, telecommunications and transportation industries in corporate transactions. In addition, Jack advises boards of directors and board committees on corporate governance, M\u0026amp;A transactions, and takeover defenses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker and author, Jack addresses important topics and trends in M\u0026amp;A and other corporate matters, bringing clients a valuable perspective that allows then to get the most out of their transactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e","slug":"jack-capers","email":"jcapers@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 404 307 6092","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eEisai Pharmaceuticals\u003c/strong\u003e in a restructuring of its worldwide collaboration with Biogen for the development of products for the treatment of Alzheimer\u0026rsquo;s and related commercial arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBelk Stores,\u003c/strong\u003e a 300-store department store company, in the sale of the company to Sycamore Partners for US$3.1 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAurrion,\u003c/strong\u003e a developer of silicon photonics, in the sale of the company to Juniper Networks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCognea Pty,\u003c/strong\u003e a developer of artificial intelligence software and technology, in the sale of the company to IBM.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eArbor Pharmaceuticals,\u003c/strong\u003e a specialty pharmaceutical company, in a control investment in the company by KKR.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the acquisition of Basilea, S.A., a pharmaceutical company in Switzerland, for \u0026pound;200 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the acquisition of Okairos AG, a developer of vaccines products based in Italy and Switzerland, for US$324 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInmar,\u003c/strong\u003e a data analytics company, in a joint venture with an international provider of point-of-sale technology to develop a platform for the collection and evaluation of customer purchasing data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eImmucor,\u003c/strong\u003e a blood diagnostics company, in its US$1.9 million merger with TPG.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":76}]},"expertise":[{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":27,"guid":"27.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":26,"guid":"26.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1141,"guid":"1141.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1193,"guid":"1193.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1220,"guid":"1220.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1223,"guid":"1223.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Capers","nick_name":"Jack","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jack","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":2190,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Order of the Coif","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1978-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a leading lawyer for M\u0026A and Corporate Law ","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2022"},{"title":"Notable Lawyer","detail":"IFLR 1000, 2020"},{"title":"Life Sciences Star in Mergers \u0026 Acquisitions","detail":"LMG Life Sciences"},{"title":"The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"Chambers"},{"title":"America’s Leading Lawyers for Business","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Georgia Super Lawyer","detail":"Atlanta Magazine"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackcapers/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJack Capers is a partner focused on corporate transactions for companies in the technology and life sciences industries. He advises these companies on a broad range of domestic and cross-border corporate transactions including mergers, acquisitions, dispositions, joint ventures, strategic alliances and strategic investments, complex in-licensing and out-licensing transactions, collaboration and development agreements, and commercial contracts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe also represents clients in the consumer products, retail, industrial and manufacturing, real estate, food and beverage, telecommunications and transportation industries in corporate transactions. In addition, Jack advises boards of directors and board committees on corporate governance, M\u0026amp;A transactions, and takeover defenses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker and author, Jack addresses important topics and trends in M\u0026amp;A and other corporate matters, bringing clients a valuable perspective that allows then to get the most out of their transactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eEisai Pharmaceuticals\u003c/strong\u003e in a restructuring of its worldwide collaboration with Biogen for the development of products for the treatment of Alzheimer\u0026rsquo;s and related commercial arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBelk Stores,\u003c/strong\u003e a 300-store department store company, in the sale of the company to Sycamore Partners for US$3.1 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAurrion,\u003c/strong\u003e a developer of silicon photonics, in the sale of the company to Juniper Networks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCognea Pty,\u003c/strong\u003e a developer of artificial intelligence software and technology, in the sale of the company to IBM.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eArbor Pharmaceuticals,\u003c/strong\u003e a specialty pharmaceutical company, in a control investment in the company by KKR.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the acquisition of Basilea, S.A., a pharmaceutical company in Switzerland, for \u0026pound;200 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the acquisition of Okairos AG, a developer of vaccines products based in Italy and Switzerland, for US$324 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInmar,\u003c/strong\u003e a data analytics company, in a joint venture with an international provider of point-of-sale technology to develop a platform for the collection and evaluation of customer purchasing data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eImmucor,\u003c/strong\u003e a blood diagnostics company, in its US$1.9 million merger with TPG.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named a leading lawyer for M\u0026A and Corporate Law ","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2022"},{"title":"Notable Lawyer","detail":"IFLR 1000, 2020"},{"title":"Life Sciences Star in Mergers \u0026 Acquisitions","detail":"LMG Life Sciences"},{"title":"The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"Chambers"},{"title":"America’s Leading Lawyers for Business","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Georgia Super Lawyer","detail":"Atlanta Magazine"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12159}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:21.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:21.000Z","searchable_text":"Capers{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a leading lawyer for M\u0026amp;A and Corporate Law \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Notable Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IFLR 1000, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Life Sciences Star in Mergers \u0026amp; Acquisitions\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"America’s Leading Lawyers for Business\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented Eisai Pharmaceuticals in a restructuring of its worldwide collaboration with Biogen for the development of products for the treatment of Alzheimer’s and related commercial arrangements.{{ FIELD }}Represented Belk Stores, a 300-store department store company, in the sale of the company to Sycamore Partners for US$3.1 billion.{{ FIELD }}Represented Aurrion, a developer of silicon photonics, in the sale of the company to Juniper Networks.{{ FIELD }}Represented Cognea Pty, a developer of artificial intelligence software and technology, in the sale of the company to IBM.{{ FIELD }}Represented Arbor Pharmaceuticals, a specialty pharmaceutical company, in a control investment in the company by KKR.{{ FIELD }}Represented GlaxoSmithKline in the acquisition of Basilea, S.A., a pharmaceutical company in Switzerland, for £200 million.{{ FIELD }}Represented GlaxoSmithKline in the acquisition of Okairos AG, a developer of vaccines products based in Italy and Switzerland, for US$324 million.{{ FIELD }}Represented Inmar, a data analytics company, in a joint venture with an international provider of point-of-sale technology to develop a platform for the collection and evaluation of customer purchasing data.{{ FIELD }}Represented Immucor, a blood diagnostics company, in its US$1.9 million merger with TPG.{{ FIELD }}Jack Capers is a partner focused on corporate transactions for companies in the technology and life sciences industries. He advises these companies on a broad range of domestic and cross-border corporate transactions including mergers, acquisitions, dispositions, joint ventures, strategic alliances and strategic investments, complex in-licensing and out-licensing transactions, collaboration and development agreements, and commercial contracts.\nHe also represents clients in the consumer products, retail, industrial and manufacturing, real estate, food and beverage, telecommunications and transportation industries in corporate transactions. In addition, Jack advises boards of directors and board committees on corporate governance, M\u0026amp;A transactions, and takeover defenses.\nA frequent speaker and author, Jack addresses important topics and trends in M\u0026amp;A and other corporate matters, bringing clients a valuable perspective that allows then to get the most out of their transactions.\n \nAdmitted only in Georgia. Jack D Capers Partner Named a leading lawyer for M\u0026amp;A and Corporate Law  Best Lawyers, 2022 Notable Lawyer IFLR 1000, 2020 Life Sciences Star in Mergers \u0026amp; Acquisitions LMG Life Sciences The Best Lawyers in America Chambers America’s Leading Lawyers for Business Chambers USA Georgia Super Lawyer Atlanta Magazine Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law California Georgia American Bar Association Best Lawyers In America State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association California Bar Association Chambers Ranked IFLR 1000 LMG Life Sciences Star Represented Eisai Pharmaceuticals in a restructuring of its worldwide collaboration with Biogen for the development of products for the treatment of Alzheimer’s and related commercial arrangements. Represented Belk Stores, a 300-store department store company, in the sale of the company to Sycamore Partners for US$3.1 billion. Represented Aurrion, a developer of silicon photonics, in the sale of the company to Juniper Networks. Represented Cognea Pty, a developer of artificial intelligence software and technology, in the sale of the company to IBM. Represented Arbor Pharmaceuticals, a specialty pharmaceutical company, in a control investment in the company by KKR. Represented GlaxoSmithKline in the acquisition of Basilea, S.A., a pharmaceutical company in Switzerland, for £200 million. Represented GlaxoSmithKline in the acquisition of Okairos AG, a developer of vaccines products based in Italy and Switzerland, for US$324 million. Represented Inmar, a data analytics company, in a joint venture with an international provider of point-of-sale technology to develop a platform for the collection and evaluation of customer purchasing data. Represented Immucor, a blood diagnostics company, in its US$1.9 million merger with TPG.","searchable_name":"Jack Capers","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":448294,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5750,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSam helps\u0026nbsp;tech\u0026nbsp;companies\u0026nbsp;navigate California class action lawsuits for privacy\u0026nbsp;claims related to their websites (CIPA, CDAFA, Invasion of Privacy, CCPA, ECPA, Wiretap Act) and\u0026nbsp;marketing claims related to their consumer marketing (TCPA, Do Not Call, and CAN-SPAM).\u0026nbsp;He\u0026nbsp;served\u0026nbsp;on Law360's Cybersecurity \u0026amp; Privacy\u0026nbsp;Editorial Board and worked\u0026nbsp;as an\u0026nbsp;in-house litigation attorney at\u0026nbsp;TikTok.\u0026nbsp;He has\u0026nbsp;advised\u0026nbsp;Fortune 100 companies\u0026nbsp;on their terms of service, consent disclosures, privacy policies, and website and marketing practices.\u0026nbsp;He was awarded the\u0026nbsp;\"Verdict of the Year\" by the Daily Journal for securing early dismissal of a TCPA class action and he obtained summary judgment in a first-of-its-kind order in a CIPA class action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSam is also a member of the Mexican American Bar Association, and he dedicates a large part of his practice to pro bono work, through which he has obtained an injunction to improve the conditions of detention in Border Patrol facilities in Arizona and won asylum for an indigent youth from Mexico. He has received the Pro Bono Service Award each year he has been practicing at King \u0026amp; Spalding. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond his tech work, Sam has broad experience in complex commercial matters, including partnership and breach of contract disputes,\u0026nbsp;trial, and arbitration (including enforcement of tens of millions of dollars of arbitration awards).\u0026nbsp; Clients especially value Sam's\u0026nbsp;attentiveness and dedication to their personal goals, as he does not rely on a one-size-fits-all strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSam graduated from Harvard Law School in 2015, where he was a research assistant for Professor Laurence Tribe and Co-President of the Harvard Mediation Program.\u0026nbsp; He clerked for a federal district court and a federal circuit court before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding.\u0026nbsp; When not practicing law, Sam saves shelter dogs from the euthanasia list,\u0026nbsp;spends time with his own rescue dogs, Alvin and Dash, tries to golf, and surfs and hikes in Southern California.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"samuel-cortina","email":"scortina@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3561}]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1180,"guid":"1180.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Cortina","nick_name":"Sam","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Honorable Bernice B. Donald, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","years_held":"2018 - 2019"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Honorable Sheryl H. Lipman, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee","years_held":"2015 - 2016"}],"first_name":"Samuel","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2015-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"C.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Samuel Cortina is a lawyer of our Business Litigation Practice Group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSam helps\u0026nbsp;tech\u0026nbsp;companies\u0026nbsp;navigate California class action lawsuits for privacy\u0026nbsp;claims related to their websites (CIPA, CDAFA, Invasion of Privacy, CCPA, ECPA, Wiretap Act) and\u0026nbsp;marketing claims related to their consumer marketing (TCPA, Do Not Call, and CAN-SPAM).\u0026nbsp;He\u0026nbsp;served\u0026nbsp;on Law360's Cybersecurity \u0026amp; Privacy\u0026nbsp;Editorial Board and worked\u0026nbsp;as an\u0026nbsp;in-house litigation attorney at\u0026nbsp;TikTok.\u0026nbsp;He has\u0026nbsp;advised\u0026nbsp;Fortune 100 companies\u0026nbsp;on their terms of service, consent disclosures, privacy policies, and website and marketing practices.\u0026nbsp;He was awarded the\u0026nbsp;\"Verdict of the Year\" by the Daily Journal for securing early dismissal of a TCPA class action and he obtained summary judgment in a first-of-its-kind order in a CIPA class action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSam is also a member of the Mexican American Bar Association, and he dedicates a large part of his practice to pro bono work, through which he has obtained an injunction to improve the conditions of detention in Border Patrol facilities in Arizona and won asylum for an indigent youth from Mexico. He has received the Pro Bono Service Award each year he has been practicing at King \u0026amp; Spalding. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond his tech work, Sam has broad experience in complex commercial matters, including partnership and breach of contract disputes,\u0026nbsp;trial, and arbitration (including enforcement of tens of millions of dollars of arbitration awards).\u0026nbsp; Clients especially value Sam's\u0026nbsp;attentiveness and dedication to their personal goals, as he does not rely on a one-size-fits-all strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSam graduated from Harvard Law School in 2015, where he was a research assistant for Professor Laurence Tribe and Co-President of the Harvard Mediation Program.\u0026nbsp; He clerked for a federal district court and a federal circuit court before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding.\u0026nbsp; When not practicing law, Sam saves shelter dogs from the euthanasia list,\u0026nbsp;spends time with his own rescue dogs, Alvin and Dash, tries to golf, and surfs and hikes in Southern California.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13035}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-15T21:55:39.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-15T21:55:39.000Z","searchable_text":"Cortina{{ FIELD }}Sam helps tech companies navigate California class action lawsuits for privacy claims related to their websites (CIPA, CDAFA, Invasion of Privacy, CCPA, ECPA, Wiretap Act) and marketing claims related to their consumer marketing (TCPA, Do Not Call, and CAN-SPAM). He served on Law360's Cybersecurity \u0026amp; Privacy Editorial Board and worked as an in-house litigation attorney at TikTok. He has advised Fortune 100 companies on their terms of service, consent disclosures, privacy policies, and website and marketing practices. He was awarded the \"Verdict of the Year\" by the Daily Journal for securing early dismissal of a TCPA class action and he obtained summary judgment in a first-of-its-kind order in a CIPA class action.\nSam is also a member of the Mexican American Bar Association, and he dedicates a large part of his practice to pro bono work, through which he has obtained an injunction to improve the conditions of detention in Border Patrol facilities in Arizona and won asylum for an indigent youth from Mexico. He has received the Pro Bono Service Award each year he has been practicing at King \u0026amp; Spalding. \nBeyond his tech work, Sam has broad experience in complex commercial matters, including partnership and breach of contract disputes, trial, and arbitration (including enforcement of tens of millions of dollars of arbitration awards).  Clients especially value Sam's attentiveness and dedication to their personal goals, as he does not rely on a one-size-fits-all strategy.\nSam graduated from Harvard Law School in 2015, where he was a research assistant for Professor Laurence Tribe and Co-President of the Harvard Mediation Program.  He clerked for a federal district court and a federal circuit court before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding.  When not practicing law, Sam saves shelter dogs from the euthanasia list, spends time with his own rescue dogs, Alvin and Dash, tries to golf, and surfs and hikes in Southern California. Samuel Cortina lawyer Partner University of California-Los Angeles UCLA School of Law Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Judicial Clerk, Honorable Bernice B. Donald, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Judicial Clerk, Honorable Sheryl H. Lipman, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee","searchable_name":"Samuel C. Cortina (Sam)","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":443991,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7075,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChris Costello advises clients on e-discovery and information governance matters, including litigation readiness, information management, data minimization, cross-border discovery issues, privacy, cybersecurity, and more.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris also handles all aspects of complex commercial litigation across a variety of disputes from inception through trial and resolution, including representations of large financial institutions in commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) matters. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris is recognized by \u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e (2022-2025) \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e (2021-2024), and \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 \u003c/em\u003e(2023-2024) for his significant contributions to E-Discovery and Information Governance.\u0026nbsp; Chris is \u0026ldquo;highly regarded for his representation of high-profile companies\u0026rdquo; and is a \u0026ldquo;super-talented lawyer who provides a calm nature that helps his clients.\u0026rdquo; Chris works to understand his clients needs and helps them implement strategies and programs that solve both their immediate and long-term e-discovery needs. He is a frequent speaker and author on e-discovery, information governance and privacy related issues.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"christopher-costello","email":"ccostello@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Costello","nick_name":"Chris","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Chris","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":755,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2004-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"E-Discovery \u0026 Information ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2022-2025"},{"title":"E-Discovery \u0026 Information Governance ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021–2024"},{"title":"E-Discovery","detail":"The Legal 500, 2023–2024"},{"title":"Marquis Who’s Who Top Lawyers","detail":"2024-2025"},{"title":"CIPP/E Certification","detail":"International Association of Privacy Professionals, 2019"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2011–2015"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-costello-9a86b39/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChris Costello advises clients on e-discovery and information governance matters, including litigation readiness, information management, data minimization, cross-border discovery issues, privacy, cybersecurity, and more.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris also handles all aspects of complex commercial litigation across a variety of disputes from inception through trial and resolution, including representations of large financial institutions in commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) matters. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris is recognized by \u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e (2022-2025) \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e (2021-2024), and \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 \u003c/em\u003e(2023-2024) for his significant contributions to E-Discovery and Information Governance.\u0026nbsp; Chris is \u0026ldquo;highly regarded for his representation of high-profile companies\u0026rdquo; and is a \u0026ldquo;super-talented lawyer who provides a calm nature that helps his clients.\u0026rdquo; Chris works to understand his clients needs and helps them implement strategies and programs that solve both their immediate and long-term e-discovery needs. He is a frequent speaker and author on e-discovery, information governance and privacy related issues.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"E-Discovery \u0026 Information ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2022-2025"},{"title":"E-Discovery \u0026 Information Governance ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021–2024"},{"title":"E-Discovery","detail":"The Legal 500, 2023–2024"},{"title":"Marquis Who’s Who Top Lawyers","detail":"2024-2025"},{"title":"CIPP/E Certification","detail":"International Association of Privacy Professionals, 2019"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2011–2015"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12713}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:23.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:23.000Z","searchable_text":"Costello{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"E-Discovery \u0026amp; Information \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2022-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"E-Discovery \u0026amp; Information Governance \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2021–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"E-Discovery\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500, 2023–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Marquis Who’s Who Top Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2024-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"CIPP/E Certification\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"International Association of Privacy Professionals, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2011–2015\"}{{ FIELD }}Chris Costello advises clients on e-discovery and information governance matters, including litigation readiness, information management, data minimization, cross-border discovery issues, privacy, cybersecurity, and more.\nChris also handles all aspects of complex commercial litigation across a variety of disputes from inception through trial and resolution, including representations of large financial institutions in commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) matters. \nChris is recognized by Chambers Global (2022-2025) Chambers USA (2021-2024), and The Legal 500 (2023-2024) for his significant contributions to E-Discovery and Information Governance.  Chris is “highly regarded for his representation of high-profile companies” and is a “super-talented lawyer who provides a calm nature that helps his clients.” Chris works to understand his clients needs and helps them implement strategies and programs that solve both their immediate and long-term e-discovery needs. He is a frequent speaker and author on e-discovery, information governance and privacy related issues. Partner E-Discovery \u0026amp; Information  Chambers Global, 2022-2025 E-Discovery \u0026amp; Information Governance  Chambers USA, 2021–2024 E-Discovery The Legal 500, 2023–2024 Marquis Who’s Who Top Lawyers 2024-2025 CIPP/E Certification International Association of Privacy Professionals, 2019 Rising Star Super Lawyers, 2011–2015 St. John's University St. John's University School of Law Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center American University Washington College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York California New York International Association of Privacy Professionals Lawyers for Civil Justice LA County Bar Association","searchable_name":"Chris Costello","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":447581,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":4212,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAaron Craig is one of the leading business litigation and unfair competition business trial lawyers in California and is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Craig represents clients in a wide variety of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals, and logistics companies.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Craig specializes in complex, bespoke cases, and has an undefeated record in both jury and bench trials as first or second chair.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThroughout his 22 years of practice, Mr. Craig has unfailingly won his clients\u0026rsquo; most important IP and unfair competition business disputes, leading to his outstanding work being recognized by Southern California Super Lawyers, Los Angeles Daily Journal, Law360, Wolters Kluwer Antitrust Law Daily, Variety and other leading publications.\u0026nbsp; Some examples follow: [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTechnology:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePresently defending Israeli cyber intelligence company NSO Group against extremely high profile Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims brought by WhatsApp, Facebook/Meta, and Apple.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCopyright and Entertainment:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Burbank High School\u0026rsquo;s vocal music department and its award-winning music teacher Brett Carroll in a landmark case, prevailing on summary judgment against a music licensing company\u0026rsquo;s effort to create a new business model and revenue stream at the expense of the national high school show choir community.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended reality television star in litigation involving employment matters and \u0026nbsp;negligence claims; advised in the establishment of a nonprofit foundation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrademark:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising and representing a leading provider of telehealth behavioral services in a likelihood of confusion and priority dispute against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended shoe manufacturer in U.S. District Court and International Trade Commission proceedings brought by Converse and Nike, leading to invalidation of the Converse All Stars \u0026ldquo;midsole stripe\u0026rdquo; trademark.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on infringement and registrability issues at TTAB on behalf of a California bank against consulting company seeking to register confusingly similar mark.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompetition in the Pharmaceutical Industry:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon published, precedent-setting U.S. District Court cases for Allergan and Hope Pharmaceuticals against compounding pharmacies and outsourcing facilities, obtaining permanent injunctions and monetary awards against the defendants\u0026rsquo; unlawful and unfair sale of unapproved drugs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatent and International Trade Commission:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObtained the then-highest ever violation-phase penalty from the International Trade Commission for Seiko Epson and Epson America against Chinese and American ink cartridge manufacturers and sellers, and managed portfolio of parallel U.S. District Court cases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor Micron Technologies, defeated patent infringement claims brought by Rambus relating to technologies adopted by JDEC as industry standard for SDRAM computer memory chips.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarlier in his career, Mr. Craig worked for three years in Paramount Pictures\u0026rsquo; Motion Picture Legal Affairs, focusing on copyright issues and motion picture production (Team America, School of Rock).\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Mr. Craig began his career at Quinn Emanuel where he practiced for eight years.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Craig was a partner in Fox Rothschild\u0026rsquo;s business litigation group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Craig\u0026rsquo;s articles have been published in the Hollywood Reporter, the Computer Law Review and Technology Journal, U.S. News and World Report, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.\u0026nbsp; He serves on the planning committee for the USC Gould School of Law Intellectual Property Institute, and is a two-time Jeopardy! champion.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"aaron-craig","email":"acraig@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Craig","nick_name":"Aaron","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Aaron","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2605,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1999-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Fulbright Professional Specialist ","detail":"2025-2026"},{"title":"Leading Commercial Litigators List","detail":"Los Angeles Daily Journal - 2026"},{"title":"Named \"Southern California Super Lawyer\"","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAaron Craig is one of the leading business litigation and unfair competition business trial lawyers in California and is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Craig represents clients in a wide variety of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals, and logistics companies.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Craig specializes in complex, bespoke cases, and has an undefeated record in both jury and bench trials as first or second chair.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThroughout his 22 years of practice, Mr. Craig has unfailingly won his clients\u0026rsquo; most important IP and unfair competition business disputes, leading to his outstanding work being recognized by Southern California Super Lawyers, Los Angeles Daily Journal, Law360, Wolters Kluwer Antitrust Law Daily, Variety and other leading publications.\u0026nbsp; Some examples follow: [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTechnology:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePresently defending Israeli cyber intelligence company NSO Group against extremely high profile Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims brought by WhatsApp, Facebook/Meta, and Apple.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCopyright and Entertainment:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Burbank High School\u0026rsquo;s vocal music department and its award-winning music teacher Brett Carroll in a landmark case, prevailing on summary judgment against a music licensing company\u0026rsquo;s effort to create a new business model and revenue stream at the expense of the national high school show choir community.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended reality television star in litigation involving employment matters and \u0026nbsp;negligence claims; advised in the establishment of a nonprofit foundation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrademark:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising and representing a leading provider of telehealth behavioral services in a likelihood of confusion and priority dispute against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended shoe manufacturer in U.S. District Court and International Trade Commission proceedings brought by Converse and Nike, leading to invalidation of the Converse All Stars \u0026ldquo;midsole stripe\u0026rdquo; trademark.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on infringement and registrability issues at TTAB on behalf of a California bank against consulting company seeking to register confusingly similar mark.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompetition in the Pharmaceutical Industry:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon published, precedent-setting U.S. District Court cases for Allergan and Hope Pharmaceuticals against compounding pharmacies and outsourcing facilities, obtaining permanent injunctions and monetary awards against the defendants\u0026rsquo; unlawful and unfair sale of unapproved drugs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatent and International Trade Commission:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObtained the then-highest ever violation-phase penalty from the International Trade Commission for Seiko Epson and Epson America against Chinese and American ink cartridge manufacturers and sellers, and managed portfolio of parallel U.S. District Court cases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor Micron Technologies, defeated patent infringement claims brought by Rambus relating to technologies adopted by JDEC as industry standard for SDRAM computer memory chips.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarlier in his career, Mr. Craig worked for three years in Paramount Pictures\u0026rsquo; Motion Picture Legal Affairs, focusing on copyright issues and motion picture production (Team America, School of Rock).\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Mr. Craig began his career at Quinn Emanuel where he practiced for eight years.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Craig was a partner in Fox Rothschild\u0026rsquo;s business litigation group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Craig\u0026rsquo;s articles have been published in the Hollywood Reporter, the Computer Law Review and Technology Journal, U.S. News and World Report, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.\u0026nbsp; He serves on the planning committee for the USC Gould School of Law Intellectual Property Institute, and is a two-time Jeopardy! champion.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Fulbright Professional Specialist ","detail":"2025-2026"},{"title":"Leading Commercial Litigators List","detail":"Los Angeles Daily Journal - 2026"},{"title":"Named \"Southern California Super Lawyer\"","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7179}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-16T14:08:08.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-16T14:08:08.000Z","searchable_text":"Craig{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Fulbright Professional Specialist \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2025-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Commercial Litigators List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Daily Journal - 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named \\\"Southern California Super Lawyer\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Aaron Craig is one of the leading business litigation and unfair competition business trial lawyers in California and is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group.  Mr. Craig represents clients in a wide variety of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals, and logistics companies.  Mr. Craig specializes in complex, bespoke cases, and has an undefeated record in both jury and bench trials as first or second chair.\nThroughout his 22 years of practice, Mr. Craig has unfailingly won his clients’ most important IP and unfair competition business disputes, leading to his outstanding work being recognized by Southern California Super Lawyers, Los Angeles Daily Journal, Law360, Wolters Kluwer Antitrust Law Daily, Variety and other leading publications.  Some examples follow: \nTechnology:\nPresently defending Israeli cyber intelligence company NSO Group against extremely high profile Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims brought by WhatsApp, Facebook/Meta, and Apple.\nCopyright and Entertainment:\nRepresented Burbank High School’s vocal music department and its award-winning music teacher Brett Carroll in a landmark case, prevailing on summary judgment against a music licensing company’s effort to create a new business model and revenue stream at the expense of the national high school show choir community.\nSuccessfully defended reality television star in litigation involving employment matters and  negligence claims; advised in the establishment of a nonprofit foundation.\nTrademark:\nAdvising and representing a leading provider of telehealth behavioral services in a likelihood of confusion and priority dispute against a competitor.\nSuccessfully defended shoe manufacturer in U.S. District Court and International Trade Commission proceedings brought by Converse and Nike, leading to invalidation of the Converse All Stars “midsole stripe” trademark.\nPrevailed on infringement and registrability issues at TTAB on behalf of a California bank against consulting company seeking to register confusingly similar mark.\nCompetition in the Pharmaceutical Industry:\nWon published, precedent-setting U.S. District Court cases for Allergan and Hope Pharmaceuticals against compounding pharmacies and outsourcing facilities, obtaining permanent injunctions and monetary awards against the defendants’ unlawful and unfair sale of unapproved drugs.\nPatent and International Trade Commission:\nObtained the then-highest ever violation-phase penalty from the International Trade Commission for Seiko Epson and Epson America against Chinese and American ink cartridge manufacturers and sellers, and managed portfolio of parallel U.S. District Court cases.\nFor Micron Technologies, defeated patent infringement claims brought by Rambus relating to technologies adopted by JDEC as industry standard for SDRAM computer memory chips.\nEarlier in his career, Mr. Craig worked for three years in Paramount Pictures’ Motion Picture Legal Affairs, focusing on copyright issues and motion picture production (Team America, School of Rock).   Mr. Craig began his career at Quinn Emanuel where he practiced for eight years.  Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Craig was a partner in Fox Rothschild’s business litigation group.\nMr. Craig’s articles have been published in the Hollywood Reporter, the Computer Law Review and Technology Journal, U.S. News and World Report, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.  He serves on the planning committee for the USC Gould School of Law Intellectual Property Institute, and is a two-time Jeopardy! champion. Partner Fulbright Professional Specialist  2025-2026 Leading Commercial Litigators List Los Angeles Daily Journal - 2026 Named \"Southern California Super Lawyer\" Super Lawyers, 2018 Yale University Yale Law School Yale University Yale Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California","searchable_name":"Aaron Craig","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":443131,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5124,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.\u0026nbsp; He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.\u0026nbsp; The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs. \u0026nbsp;He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.\u0026nbsp; He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.\u0026nbsp; Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.\u0026nbsp; Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client\u0026rsquo;s patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.\u0026nbsp; He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the \u0026ldquo;386\u0026rdquo; trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom speaks frequently on patent issues.\u0026nbsp; He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.\u0026nbsp; He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,\u0026nbsp; as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u003c/em\u003e since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of\u0026nbsp; The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the \u0026ldquo;Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\u0026rdquo; by the Daily Journal.\u0026nbsp; He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEuro Money\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"thomas-friel","email":"tfriel@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 415 990 7997","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.aofs","index":0,"source":"aofs"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Friel","nick_name":"Tom","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Thomas","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2237,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1977-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":[{"title":"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law","detail":"BEST LAWYERS USA"},{"title":"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California","detail":"Daily Journal"},{"title":"Recognized, IP Star ","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Listed, IP Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property ","detail":"Euromoney"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts","detail":"Euromoney"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.\u0026nbsp; He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.\u0026nbsp; The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs. \u0026nbsp;He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.\u0026nbsp; He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.\u0026nbsp; Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.\u0026nbsp; Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client\u0026rsquo;s patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.\u0026nbsp; He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the \u0026ldquo;386\u0026rdquo; trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom speaks frequently on patent issues.\u0026nbsp; He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.\u0026nbsp; He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,\u0026nbsp; as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u003c/em\u003e since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of\u0026nbsp; The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the \u0026ldquo;Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\u0026rdquo; by the Daily Journal.\u0026nbsp; He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEuro Money\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law","detail":"BEST LAWYERS USA"},{"title":"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California","detail":"Daily Journal"},{"title":"Recognized, IP Star ","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Listed, IP Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property ","detail":"Euromoney"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts","detail":"Euromoney"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5702}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-19T20:04:25.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-19T20:04:25.000Z","searchable_text":"Friel{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BEST LAWYERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, IP Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, IP Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney\"}{{ FIELD }}Tom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.  He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.  The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs.  He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\nTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.  He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.  Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies. \nTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.  Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client’s patents.\nTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.  He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the “386” trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\nTom speaks frequently on patent issues.  He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.  He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,  as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked Chambers USA, Legal 500, Managing Intellectual Property since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of  The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the “Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California” by the Daily Journal.  He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by IAM Patent 1000, Super Lawyers, and Euro Money.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice. Partner Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law BEST LAWYERS USA Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California Daily Journal Recognized, IP Star  Managing Intellectual Property Listed, Patent Litigation Legal 500 Listed, IP Litigation Chambers USA Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer IAM Patent 1000 Listed, Patent Litigation Best Lawyers in America Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer Super Lawyers Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property  Euromoney Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts Euromoney University of Michigan-Ann Arbor  University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School California American Bar Association Santa Clara County Bar Association International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association The Bar Association of San Francisco","searchable_name":"Thomas J. Friel, Jr. (Tom)","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":442818,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5741,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeanne Fugate has a wide-ranging practice, focusing primarily on trade secrets issues, employment litigation, complex civil litigation, and securities litigation. She handles all phases of litigation in state and federal courts across various fields, including employment, contract, real estate, and general business disputes. Jeanne also advises clients regarding employment and compliance issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeanne Fugate is a go-to partner on trade secrets issues, including all issues surrounding employee mobility, ranging from drafting enforceable employment agreements, to advising clients as to appropriate on-boarding and off-boarding practices, and ultimately to litigating any disputes that may arise from the termination of an employer/employee relationship. In order to litigate trade secrets, non-competes, and other employee mobility claims, lawyers are often called upon to respond quickly to demand letters and to immediately move to draft and/or defend against requests for TROs and preliminary injunctions. Jeanne, a journalist before law school, excels at this fast-paced practice.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeanne served as the editor-in-chief of UNC-Chapel Hill\u0026rsquo;s daily newspaper, \u003cem\u003eThe Daily Tar Heel\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jeanne-fugate","email":"jfugate@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secrets and Non-Compete Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated an application for preliminary injunction to prohibit an executive from competing against a former employer for a health care client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an application for a TRO based on theft of trade secret claim for a health care client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a TRO to require defendant to honor choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions in a former executive\u0026rsquo;s employment agreement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated a preliminary injunction to prevent competitor company from recruiting, soliciting and hiring plaintiff company\u0026rsquo;s employees\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a $6.15 million jury verdict for a leading aircraft supply company after a three-week trial on trade secret misappropriation and other tort claims against a former employee and other competitors\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending a former pharmaceutical executive from claims of trade secret misappropriation, defeating a preliminary injunction\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended former employees against an internet affiliate company seeking to enforce noncompete agreement. Obtained a writ of supersedeas blocking enforcement of preliminary injunction, motivating settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBusiness and Securities Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented start-up technology company in lawsuit against component manufacturer alleging $200 million in damages; after serving as lead trial counsel in a two-week trial, obtained a favorable resolution on the eve of post-trial motion briefing\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented health care company in founders\u0026rsquo; dispute; after defeating plaintiff-founders\u0026rsquo; TRO application and successfully moving the case into arbitration, the case resolved\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented former Countrywide president in multidistrict litigation arising from mortgage-backed securities. Obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a number of lawsuits at the motion-to-dismiss stage\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme run through a brokerage firm. Since 2009, Jeanne has represented a group of 23 plaintiffs who were victims of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, she obtained a favorable settlement from a national brokerage firm in the days before trial. Most recently, she sought and obtained default judgments of more than $3 million for our clients\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a directed verdict for a registered financial company after a five-day jury trial on a fraud claim arising out of an investment loss\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHandled a class action on behalf of investors who lost money in a complex Ponzi scheme, obtaining more than $17 million in settlements with two major financial institutions and an accounting firm that were alleged to have aided the operators of the financial scheme\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the team that conducted an independent investigation into allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct in the National Women\u0026rsquo;s Soccer League, as commissioned by the U.S. Soccer Foundation. The report concluded that owners and coaches at all levels of the NWSL had turned a blind eye toward years of reports of abuse from players. Jeanne led the team investigating the role of SafeSport, the group tasked with handling certain player complaints\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented six individual defendants in a lawsuit alleging breach of employment obligations and breach of the duty to act fairly and honestly under Russian employment law, seeking $670 million. The court granted dismissal with prejudice. Jeanne\u0026rsquo;s clients were awarded almost $600,000 in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreserved a settlement agreement in a suitable seating PAGA action against a major retailer, defeating a motion for sanctions\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured the dismissal of a suitable seating action against major retailer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolving multiple wrongful termination cases for media clients before trial or arbitration commenced\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a company in an investigation of fatality at work and resolved OSHA investigation into the incident\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended employment discrimination claims for an outdoor advertising company, resulting in settlements before any litigation was filed\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFamily Law\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented client in novel action brought under\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarvin v. Marvin\u003c/em\u003e, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976); case resolved on eve of trial after favorable pretrial rulings\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertainment and Intellectual Property\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment in a trademark matter in the Middle District of Florida that was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The court agreed with Jeanne\u0026rsquo;s argument that the \"Elimidate Ironman Challenge\" did not infringe the Ironman Triathlon trademarks because the term \"ironman\" is commonly used to describe persons of unusual endurance and thus the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; marks were entitled only to limited protection\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated summary judgment brought by the Associated Press in litigation relating to Shepard Fairey\u0026rsquo;s 2008 campaign poster of Barack Obama on behalf of Fairey's exclusive licensee, Obey Clothing, leading to successful resolution of the dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained the affirmance of a judgment after a ten-day bench trial for an outdoor advertising company, allowing the company to continue to operate a billboard and including an award of almost $500,000 in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees and costs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a complete defense judgment on behalf of Academy Award-winning actor Robert De Niro. Fireman\u0026rsquo;s Fund Insurance Co., which insured the film Hide and Seek in 2003, accused Mr. De Niro of intentionally withholding information about his cancer diagnosis during a cast medical examination. The case was dismissed in favor of Mr. De Niro\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCriminal Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecured the release of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who had been incarcerated after refusing to testify before the grand jury against other Jewish persons\u0026mdash;a case that drew international attention. The rabbi cited the rule of mesira, which imposes on the ultra-Orthodox the religious obligation to refrain from testifying against other Jews. The government eventually agreed to the rabbi\u0026rsquo;s release seven months after he was incarcerated, a fraction of the maximum eighteen-month term\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cdiv id=\"mySiteMain\" data-name=\"ContentPlaceHolderMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_PageContentSection\" class=\"pageContentSection\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"fixedWidthMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"MSO_ContentTable\" class=\"ms-core-tableNoSpace ms-fillBox\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr id=\"BottomRow\"\u003e\n\u003ctd id=\"BottomCell\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-webpart-zone ms-fullWidth\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"MSOZoneCell_WebPartctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\" class=\"s4-wpcell-plain ms-webpartzone-cell ms-webpart-cell-vertical ms-fullWidth \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-webpart-chrome ms-webpart-chrome-vertical ms-webpart-chrome-fullWidth \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"WebPartctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\" class=\"ms-WPBody noindex \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8_profileBody\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"pnlClientsMatters\" class=\"pagePanel\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"pnlClientMattersText\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon a complete dismissal of all charges in a groundbreaking and published decision against the client, who was charged in federal court with \"harboring\" her fugitive husband. The court ruled that federal prosecutors had arrested the client without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The client was released and all charges were dismissed seven days after the case was filed by the United States Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"pageFooterSection noindex\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":115,"guid":"115.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Fugate","nick_name":"Jeanne","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. Raymond C. Fisher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","years_held":"2003 - 2004"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. Robert W. Sweet, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","years_held":"2002 - 2003"}],"first_name":"Jeanne","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":1406,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2001-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California","detail":"Daily Journal 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as Top Labor and Employment Lawyer in California by the ","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017"},{"title":"Recommended for Trade Secret","detail":"Legal 500 US 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as Top 100 Women Lawyers in California","detail":"Daily Journal 2018, 2019"},{"title":"Editorial Board Member – Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Law360 2024"},{"title":"Recognized as a Woman of Influence: Attorney","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017, 2024"},{"title":"Named to the “Thriving in Their 40s” list","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeanne Fugate has a wide-ranging practice, focusing primarily on trade secrets issues, employment litigation, complex civil litigation, and securities litigation. She handles all phases of litigation in state and federal courts across various fields, including employment, contract, real estate, and general business disputes. Jeanne also advises clients regarding employment and compliance issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeanne Fugate is a go-to partner on trade secrets issues, including all issues surrounding employee mobility, ranging from drafting enforceable employment agreements, to advising clients as to appropriate on-boarding and off-boarding practices, and ultimately to litigating any disputes that may arise from the termination of an employer/employee relationship. In order to litigate trade secrets, non-competes, and other employee mobility claims, lawyers are often called upon to respond quickly to demand letters and to immediately move to draft and/or defend against requests for TROs and preliminary injunctions. Jeanne, a journalist before law school, excels at this fast-paced practice.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeanne served as the editor-in-chief of UNC-Chapel Hill\u0026rsquo;s daily newspaper, \u003cem\u003eThe Daily Tar Heel\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secrets and Non-Compete Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated an application for preliminary injunction to prohibit an executive from competing against a former employer for a health care client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an application for a TRO based on theft of trade secret claim for a health care client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a TRO to require defendant to honor choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions in a former executive\u0026rsquo;s employment agreement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated a preliminary injunction to prevent competitor company from recruiting, soliciting and hiring plaintiff company\u0026rsquo;s employees\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a $6.15 million jury verdict for a leading aircraft supply company after a three-week trial on trade secret misappropriation and other tort claims against a former employee and other competitors\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending a former pharmaceutical executive from claims of trade secret misappropriation, defeating a preliminary injunction\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended former employees against an internet affiliate company seeking to enforce noncompete agreement. Obtained a writ of supersedeas blocking enforcement of preliminary injunction, motivating settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBusiness and Securities Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented start-up technology company in lawsuit against component manufacturer alleging $200 million in damages; after serving as lead trial counsel in a two-week trial, obtained a favorable resolution on the eve of post-trial motion briefing\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented health care company in founders\u0026rsquo; dispute; after defeating plaintiff-founders\u0026rsquo; TRO application and successfully moving the case into arbitration, the case resolved\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented former Countrywide president in multidistrict litigation arising from mortgage-backed securities. Obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a number of lawsuits at the motion-to-dismiss stage\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme run through a brokerage firm. Since 2009, Jeanne has represented a group of 23 plaintiffs who were victims of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, she obtained a favorable settlement from a national brokerage firm in the days before trial. Most recently, she sought and obtained default judgments of more than $3 million for our clients\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a directed verdict for a registered financial company after a five-day jury trial on a fraud claim arising out of an investment loss\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHandled a class action on behalf of investors who lost money in a complex Ponzi scheme, obtaining more than $17 million in settlements with two major financial institutions and an accounting firm that were alleged to have aided the operators of the financial scheme\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the team that conducted an independent investigation into allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct in the National Women\u0026rsquo;s Soccer League, as commissioned by the U.S. Soccer Foundation. The report concluded that owners and coaches at all levels of the NWSL had turned a blind eye toward years of reports of abuse from players. Jeanne led the team investigating the role of SafeSport, the group tasked with handling certain player complaints\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented six individual defendants in a lawsuit alleging breach of employment obligations and breach of the duty to act fairly and honestly under Russian employment law, seeking $670 million. The court granted dismissal with prejudice. Jeanne\u0026rsquo;s clients were awarded almost $600,000 in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreserved a settlement agreement in a suitable seating PAGA action against a major retailer, defeating a motion for sanctions\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured the dismissal of a suitable seating action against major retailer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolving multiple wrongful termination cases for media clients before trial or arbitration commenced\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a company in an investigation of fatality at work and resolved OSHA investigation into the incident\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended employment discrimination claims for an outdoor advertising company, resulting in settlements before any litigation was filed\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFamily Law\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented client in novel action brought under\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarvin v. Marvin\u003c/em\u003e, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976); case resolved on eve of trial after favorable pretrial rulings\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertainment and Intellectual Property\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment in a trademark matter in the Middle District of Florida that was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The court agreed with Jeanne\u0026rsquo;s argument that the \"Elimidate Ironman Challenge\" did not infringe the Ironman Triathlon trademarks because the term \"ironman\" is commonly used to describe persons of unusual endurance and thus the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; marks were entitled only to limited protection\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated summary judgment brought by the Associated Press in litigation relating to Shepard Fairey\u0026rsquo;s 2008 campaign poster of Barack Obama on behalf of Fairey's exclusive licensee, Obey Clothing, leading to successful resolution of the dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained the affirmance of a judgment after a ten-day bench trial for an outdoor advertising company, allowing the company to continue to operate a billboard and including an award of almost $500,000 in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees and costs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a complete defense judgment on behalf of Academy Award-winning actor Robert De Niro. Fireman\u0026rsquo;s Fund Insurance Co., which insured the film Hide and Seek in 2003, accused Mr. De Niro of intentionally withholding information about his cancer diagnosis during a cast medical examination. The case was dismissed in favor of Mr. De Niro\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCriminal Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecured the release of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who had been incarcerated after refusing to testify before the grand jury against other Jewish persons\u0026mdash;a case that drew international attention. The rabbi cited the rule of mesira, which imposes on the ultra-Orthodox the religious obligation to refrain from testifying against other Jews. The government eventually agreed to the rabbi\u0026rsquo;s release seven months after he was incarcerated, a fraction of the maximum eighteen-month term\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cdiv id=\"mySiteMain\" data-name=\"ContentPlaceHolderMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_PageContentSection\" class=\"pageContentSection\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"fixedWidthMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"MSO_ContentTable\" class=\"ms-core-tableNoSpace ms-fillBox\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr id=\"BottomRow\"\u003e\n\u003ctd id=\"BottomCell\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-webpart-zone ms-fullWidth\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"MSOZoneCell_WebPartctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\" class=\"s4-wpcell-plain ms-webpartzone-cell ms-webpart-cell-vertical ms-fullWidth \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-webpart-chrome ms-webpart-chrome-vertical ms-webpart-chrome-fullWidth \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"WebPartctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\" class=\"ms-WPBody noindex \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8_profileBody\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"pnlClientsMatters\" class=\"pagePanel\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"pnlClientMattersText\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon a complete dismissal of all charges in a groundbreaking and published decision against the client, who was charged in federal court with \"harboring\" her fugitive husband. The court ruled that federal prosecutors had arrested the client without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The client was released and all charges were dismissed seven days after the case was filed by the United States Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"pageFooterSection noindex\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California","detail":"Daily Journal 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as Top Labor and Employment Lawyer in California by the ","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017"},{"title":"Recommended for Trade Secret","detail":"Legal 500 US 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as Top 100 Women Lawyers in California","detail":"Daily Journal 2018, 2019"},{"title":"Editorial Board Member – Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Law360 2024"},{"title":"Recognized as a Woman of Influence: Attorney","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017, 2024"},{"title":"Named to the “Thriving in Their 40s” list","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8078}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:08.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:08.000Z","searchable_text":"Fugate{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Top Labor and Employment Lawyer in California by the \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended for Trade Secret\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Top 100 Women Lawyers in California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal 2018, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Editorial Board Member – Media \u0026amp; Entertainment\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a Woman of Influence: Attorney\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the “Thriving in Their 40s” list\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Matters\nDefeated an application for preliminary injunction to prohibit an executive from competing against a former employer for a health care client{{ FIELD }}Defeated an application for a TRO based on theft of trade secret claim for a health care client{{ FIELD }}Obtained a TRO to require defendant to honor choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions in a former executive’s employment agreement{{ FIELD }}Defeated a preliminary injunction to prevent competitor company from recruiting, soliciting and hiring plaintiff company’s employees{{ FIELD }}Obtained a $6.15 million jury verdict for a leading aircraft supply company after a three-week trial on trade secret misappropriation and other tort claims against a former employee and other competitors{{ FIELD }}Successfully defending a former pharmaceutical executive from claims of trade secret misappropriation, defeating a preliminary injunction{{ FIELD }}Defended former employees against an internet affiliate company seeking to enforce noncompete agreement. Obtained a writ of supersedeas blocking enforcement of preliminary injunction, motivating settlement{{ FIELD }}Business and Securities Disputes\nRepresented start-up technology company in lawsuit against component manufacturer alleging $200 million in damages; after serving as lead trial counsel in a two-week trial, obtained a favorable resolution on the eve of post-trial motion briefing{{ FIELD }}Represented health care company in founders’ dispute; after defeating plaintiff-founders’ TRO application and successfully moving the case into arbitration, the case resolved{{ FIELD }}Represented former Countrywide president in multidistrict litigation arising from mortgage-backed securities. Obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a number of lawsuits at the motion-to-dismiss stage{{ FIELD }}Successfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme run through a brokerage firm. Since 2009, Jeanne has represented a group of 23 plaintiffs who were victims of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, she obtained a favorable settlement from a national brokerage firm in the days before trial. Most recently, she sought and obtained default judgments of more than $3 million for our clients{{ FIELD }}Obtained a directed verdict for a registered financial company after a five-day jury trial on a fraud claim arising out of an investment loss{{ FIELD }}Handled a class action on behalf of investors who lost money in a complex Ponzi scheme, obtaining more than $17 million in settlements with two major financial institutions and an accounting firm that were alleged to have aided the operators of the financial scheme{{ FIELD }}In a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week{{ FIELD }}Employment Matters\nOn the team that conducted an independent investigation into allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct in the National Women’s Soccer League, as commissioned by the U.S. Soccer Foundation. The report concluded that owners and coaches at all levels of the NWSL had turned a blind eye toward years of reports of abuse from players. Jeanne led the team investigating the role of SafeSport, the group tasked with handling certain player complaints{{ FIELD }}Represented six individual defendants in a lawsuit alleging breach of employment obligations and breach of the duty to act fairly and honestly under Russian employment law, seeking $670 million. The court granted dismissal with prejudice. Jeanne’s clients were awarded almost $600,000 in attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Preserved a settlement agreement in a suitable seating PAGA action against a major retailer, defeating a motion for sanctions{{ FIELD }}Secured the dismissal of a suitable seating action against major retailer.{{ FIELD }}Successfully resolving multiple wrongful termination cases for media clients before trial or arbitration commenced{{ FIELD }}Represented a company in an investigation of fatality at work and resolved OSHA investigation into the incident{{ FIELD }}Defended employment discrimination claims for an outdoor advertising company, resulting in settlements before any litigation was filed{{ FIELD }}Family Law\nRepresented client in novel action brought under Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976); case resolved on eve of trial after favorable pretrial rulings{{ FIELD }}Entertainment and Intellectual Property\nObtained summary judgment in a trademark matter in the Middle District of Florida that was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The court agreed with Jeanne’s argument that the \"Elimidate Ironman Challenge\" did not infringe the Ironman Triathlon trademarks because the term \"ironman\" is commonly used to describe persons of unusual endurance and thus the plaintiffs’ marks were entitled only to limited protection{{ FIELD }}Defeated summary judgment brought by the Associated Press in litigation relating to Shepard Fairey’s 2008 campaign poster of Barack Obama on behalf of Fairey's exclusive licensee, Obey Clothing, leading to successful resolution of the dispute{{ FIELD }}Obtained the affirmance of a judgment after a ten-day bench trial for an outdoor advertising company, allowing the company to continue to operate a billboard and including an award of almost $500,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs{{ FIELD }}Achieved a complete defense judgment on behalf of Academy Award-winning actor Robert De Niro. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., which insured the film Hide and Seek in 2003, accused Mr. De Niro of intentionally withholding information about his cancer diagnosis during a cast medical examination. The case was dismissed in favor of Mr. De Niro{{ FIELD }}Criminal Matters\nSecured the release of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who had been incarcerated after refusing to testify before the grand jury against other Jewish persons—a case that drew international attention. The rabbi cited the rule of mesira, which imposes on the ultra-Orthodox the religious obligation to refrain from testifying against other Jews. The government eventually agreed to the rabbi’s release seven months after he was incarcerated, a fraction of the maximum eighteen-month term{{ FIELD }}\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWon a complete dismissal of all charges in a groundbreaking and published decision against the client, who was charged in federal court with \"harboring\" her fugitive husband. The court ruled that federal prosecutors had arrested the client without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The client was released and all charges were dismissed seven days after the case was filed by the United States Attorney’s Office\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n {{ FIELD }}Jeanne Fugate has a wide-ranging practice, focusing primarily on trade secrets issues, employment litigation, complex civil litigation, and securities litigation. She handles all phases of litigation in state and federal courts across various fields, including employment, contract, real estate, and general business disputes. Jeanne also advises clients regarding employment and compliance issues.\nJeanne Fugate is a go-to partner on trade secrets issues, including all issues surrounding employee mobility, ranging from drafting enforceable employment agreements, to advising clients as to appropriate on-boarding and off-boarding practices, and ultimately to litigating any disputes that may arise from the termination of an employer/employee relationship. In order to litigate trade secrets, non-competes, and other employee mobility claims, lawyers are often called upon to respond quickly to demand letters and to immediately move to draft and/or defend against requests for TROs and preliminary injunctions. Jeanne, a journalist before law school, excels at this fast-paced practice. \nJeanne served as the editor-in-chief of UNC-Chapel Hill’s daily newspaper, The Daily Tar Heel. Partner Recognized as Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California Daily Journal 2023 Recognized as Top Labor and Employment Lawyer in California by the  Los Angeles Business Journal 2017 Recommended for Trade Secret Legal 500 US 2023 Recognized as Top 100 Women Lawyers in California Daily Journal 2018, 2019 Editorial Board Member – Media \u0026amp; Entertainment Law360 2024 Recognized as a Woman of Influence: Attorney Los Angeles Business Journal 2017, 2024 Named to the “Thriving in Their 40s” list Los Angeles Business Journal 2023 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina School of Law New York University New York University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 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 New York President, Los Angeles Civil Service Commission Board Member and President-Elect, California ChangeLawyers Board Member and Dinner Committee Chair, Association of Business Trial Lawyers Member, Sedona Conference WG12 Model Defend Trade Secrets Act Jury Instructions Brainstorming Group (committee working to draft model jury instructions to be used in DTSA cases) Member, CJA/CLA Civility in the Legal Profession Task Force LA Board of Directors and Co-Chair Government Relations Committee, Federal Bar Association Judicial Clerk, Hon. Raymond C. Fisher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judicial Clerk, Hon. Robert W. Sweet, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Matters\nDefeated an application for preliminary injunction to prohibit an executive from competing against a former employer for a health care client Defeated an application for a TRO based on theft of trade secret claim for a health care client Obtained a TRO to require defendant to honor choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions in a former executive’s employment agreement Defeated a preliminary injunction to prevent competitor company from recruiting, soliciting and hiring plaintiff company’s employees Obtained a $6.15 million jury verdict for a leading aircraft supply company after a three-week trial on trade secret misappropriation and other tort claims against a former employee and other competitors Successfully defending a former pharmaceutical executive from claims of trade secret misappropriation, defeating a preliminary injunction Defended former employees against an internet affiliate company seeking to enforce noncompete agreement. Obtained a writ of supersedeas blocking enforcement of preliminary injunction, motivating settlement Business and Securities Disputes\nRepresented start-up technology company in lawsuit against component manufacturer alleging $200 million in damages; after serving as lead trial counsel in a two-week trial, obtained a favorable resolution on the eve of post-trial motion briefing Represented health care company in founders’ dispute; after defeating plaintiff-founders’ TRO application and successfully moving the case into arbitration, the case resolved Represented former Countrywide president in multidistrict litigation arising from mortgage-backed securities. Obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a number of lawsuits at the motion-to-dismiss stage Successfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme run through a brokerage firm. Since 2009, Jeanne has represented a group of 23 plaintiffs who were victims of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, she obtained a favorable settlement from a national brokerage firm in the days before trial. Most recently, she sought and obtained default judgments of more than $3 million for our clients Obtained a directed verdict for a registered financial company after a five-day jury trial on a fraud claim arising out of an investment loss Handled a class action on behalf of investors who lost money in a complex Ponzi scheme, obtaining more than $17 million in settlements with two major financial institutions and an accounting firm that were alleged to have aided the operators of the financial scheme In a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week Employment Matters\nOn the team that conducted an independent investigation into allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct in the National Women’s Soccer League, as commissioned by the U.S. Soccer Foundation. The report concluded that owners and coaches at all levels of the NWSL had turned a blind eye toward years of reports of abuse from players. Jeanne led the team investigating the role of SafeSport, the group tasked with handling certain player complaints Represented six individual defendants in a lawsuit alleging breach of employment obligations and breach of the duty to act fairly and honestly under Russian employment law, seeking $670 million. The court granted dismissal with prejudice. Jeanne’s clients were awarded almost $600,000 in attorneys’ fees. Preserved a settlement agreement in a suitable seating PAGA action against a major retailer, defeating a motion for sanctions Secured the dismissal of a suitable seating action against major retailer. Successfully resolving multiple wrongful termination cases for media clients before trial or arbitration commenced Represented a company in an investigation of fatality at work and resolved OSHA investigation into the incident Defended employment discrimination claims for an outdoor advertising company, resulting in settlements before any litigation was filed Family Law\nRepresented client in novel action brought under Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976); case resolved on eve of trial after favorable pretrial rulings Entertainment and Intellectual Property\nObtained summary judgment in a trademark matter in the Middle District of Florida that was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The court agreed with Jeanne’s argument that the \"Elimidate Ironman Challenge\" did not infringe the Ironman Triathlon trademarks because the term \"ironman\" is commonly used to describe persons of unusual endurance and thus the plaintiffs’ marks were entitled only to limited protection Defeated summary judgment brought by the Associated Press in litigation relating to Shepard Fairey’s 2008 campaign poster of Barack Obama on behalf of Fairey's exclusive licensee, Obey Clothing, leading to successful resolution of the dispute Obtained the affirmance of a judgment after a ten-day bench trial for an outdoor advertising company, allowing the company to continue to operate a billboard and including an award of almost $500,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs Achieved a complete defense judgment on behalf of Academy Award-winning actor Robert De Niro. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., which insured the film Hide and Seek in 2003, accused Mr. De Niro of intentionally withholding information about his cancer diagnosis during a cast medical examination. The case was dismissed in favor of Mr. De Niro Criminal Matters\nSecured the release of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who had been incarcerated after refusing to testify before the grand jury against other Jewish persons—a case that drew international attention. The rabbi cited the rule of mesira, which imposes on the ultra-Orthodox the religious obligation to refrain from testifying against other Jews. The government eventually agreed to the rabbi’s release seven months after he was incarcerated, a fraction of the maximum eighteen-month term \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWon a complete dismissal of all charges in a groundbreaking and published decision against the client, who was charged in federal court with \"harboring\" her fugitive husband. The court ruled that federal prosecutors had arrested the client without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The client was released and all charges were dismissed seven days after the case was filed by the United States Attorney’s Office\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n ","searchable_name":"Jeanne A. Fugate","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":446836,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5409,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAriana Fuller is\u0026nbsp;a member of the firm's Healthcare practice group.\u0026nbsp;Ariana\u0026nbsp;specializes in managed care litigation and consumer class action defense on behalf of hospitals and other healthcare providers.\u0026nbsp;Ariana is a successful trial lawyer, having won several jury verdicts on behalf of hospitals against\u0026nbsp;healthcare\u0026nbsp;payers\u0026nbsp;in out-of-network reimbursement disputes. Ariana\u0026nbsp;advises clients on various health\u0026nbsp;law issues, including payer contract disputes and negotiations, the No Surprises Act, the\u0026nbsp;Affordable Care Act, California's Health \u0026amp; Safety Code, the Knox-Keene Act, ERISA,\u0026nbsp;HIPAA, and numerous other areas\u0026nbsp;of law relevant to our clients.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAriana's litigation experience includes contract disputes, commercial torts, unfair business practices litigation, and complex quantum meruit disputes. She litigates\u0026nbsp;in both state and federal court, as well as arbitrations.\u0026nbsp;Ariana also has experience conducting internal investigations and defending\u0026nbsp;companies and individuals against accusations of fraud and abuse.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAriana maintains an active pro bono practice, having sued state Medicaid plans for their failure to provide health insurance coverage to transgender youth and adults\u0026nbsp;for medically necessary gender affirming care. She also defends\u0026nbsp;tenants in Los Angeles against unlawful evictions, and, in December 2023, first-chaired and won a unanimous jury verdict on behalf of a tenant whose landlord was trying to wrongfully evict him.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to becoming a litigator, Ariana served as a judicial clerk in the Central District of California to the Hon. Jesus G. Bernal and as an extern for the Hon. Stephen R. Reinhardt\u0026nbsp;of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAriana received her J.D. from UCLA School of Law, where she\u0026nbsp;served as the\u0026nbsp;Articles Editor\u0026nbsp;for the Journal\u0026nbsp;of International Law and Foreign Affairs as well as the Events Chair for the American Constitution Society.\u0026nbsp; Ariana received her undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California, \u003cem\u003ecum laude.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"ariana-fuller","email":"afuller@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":740,"guid":"740.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Fuller","nick_name":"Ariana","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Jesus G. Bernal, Central District of California","years_held":"2015 - 2016"}],"first_name":"Ariana","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2162,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":null},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Law360 Rising Star, Healthcare","detail":"Law360, 2025"},{"title":"Key Lawyer, Healthcare","detail":"Legal500, 2024"},{"title":"Selected as a Rising Star in Health Care","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2023-2026"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAriana Fuller is\u0026nbsp;a member of the firm's Healthcare practice group.\u0026nbsp;Ariana\u0026nbsp;specializes in managed care litigation and consumer class action defense on behalf of hospitals and other healthcare providers.\u0026nbsp;Ariana is a successful trial lawyer, having won several jury verdicts on behalf of hospitals against\u0026nbsp;healthcare\u0026nbsp;payers\u0026nbsp;in out-of-network reimbursement disputes. Ariana\u0026nbsp;advises clients on various health\u0026nbsp;law issues, including payer contract disputes and negotiations, the No Surprises Act, the\u0026nbsp;Affordable Care Act, California's Health \u0026amp; Safety Code, the Knox-Keene Act, ERISA,\u0026nbsp;HIPAA, and numerous other areas\u0026nbsp;of law relevant to our clients.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAriana's litigation experience includes contract disputes, commercial torts, unfair business practices litigation, and complex quantum meruit disputes. She litigates\u0026nbsp;in both state and federal court, as well as arbitrations.\u0026nbsp;Ariana also has experience conducting internal investigations and defending\u0026nbsp;companies and individuals against accusations of fraud and abuse.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAriana maintains an active pro bono practice, having sued state Medicaid plans for their failure to provide health insurance coverage to transgender youth and adults\u0026nbsp;for medically necessary gender affirming care. She also defends\u0026nbsp;tenants in Los Angeles against unlawful evictions, and, in December 2023, first-chaired and won a unanimous jury verdict on behalf of a tenant whose landlord was trying to wrongfully evict him.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to becoming a litigator, Ariana served as a judicial clerk in the Central District of California to the Hon. Jesus G. Bernal and as an extern for the Hon. Stephen R. Reinhardt\u0026nbsp;of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAriana received her J.D. from UCLA School of Law, where she\u0026nbsp;served as the\u0026nbsp;Articles Editor\u0026nbsp;for the Journal\u0026nbsp;of International Law and Foreign Affairs as well as the Events Chair for the American Constitution Society.\u0026nbsp; Ariana received her undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California, \u003cem\u003ecum laude.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Law360 Rising Star, Healthcare","detail":"Law360, 2025"},{"title":"Key Lawyer, Healthcare","detail":"Legal500, 2024"},{"title":"Selected as a Rising Star in Health Care","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2023-2026"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12920}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-03-18T14:55:12.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-18T14:55:12.000Z","searchable_text":"Fuller{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Rising Star, Healthcare\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Key Lawyer, Healthcare\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal500, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected as a Rising Star in Health Care\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2023-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}Ariana Fuller is a member of the firm's Healthcare practice group. Ariana specializes in managed care litigation and consumer class action defense on behalf of hospitals and other healthcare providers. Ariana is a successful trial lawyer, having won several jury verdicts on behalf of hospitals against healthcare payers in out-of-network reimbursement disputes. Ariana advises clients on various health law issues, including payer contract disputes and negotiations, the No Surprises Act, the Affordable Care Act, California's Health \u0026amp; Safety Code, the Knox-Keene Act, ERISA, HIPAA, and numerous other areas of law relevant to our clients.  \nAriana's litigation experience includes contract disputes, commercial torts, unfair business practices litigation, and complex quantum meruit disputes. She litigates in both state and federal court, as well as arbitrations. Ariana also has experience conducting internal investigations and defending companies and individuals against accusations of fraud and abuse. \nAriana maintains an active pro bono practice, having sued state Medicaid plans for their failure to provide health insurance coverage to transgender youth and adults for medically necessary gender affirming care. She also defends tenants in Los Angeles against unlawful evictions, and, in December 2023, first-chaired and won a unanimous jury verdict on behalf of a tenant whose landlord was trying to wrongfully evict him.\nPrior to becoming a litigator, Ariana served as a judicial clerk in the Central District of California to the Hon. Jesus G. Bernal and as an extern for the Hon. Stephen R. Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.   \nAriana received her J.D. from UCLA School of Law, where she served as the Articles Editor for the Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs as well as the Events Chair for the American Constitution Society.  Ariana received her undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California, cum laude.\n  Partner Law360 Rising Star, Healthcare Law360, 2025 Key Lawyer, Healthcare Legal500, 2024 Selected as a Rising Star in Health Care Super Lawyers, 2023-2026 University of Southern California USC Gould School of Law University of California-Los Angeles UCLA School of Law U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California California District of Columbia American Bar Association American Health Lawyers Association Los Angeles County Bar Association California Society for Healthcare Attorneys Law Clerk, Jesus G. Bernal, Central District of California","searchable_name":"Ariana E. Fuller","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}]}}