{"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":3060},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"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 Leeds School of Law","value":2850},{"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":3052},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"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":"J","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":444346,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5737,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eArwen Johnson is a trial lawyer\u0026nbsp;who delivers results in high-stakes cases and regularly wins dispositive motions.\u0026nbsp; Arwen specializes in intellectual property, employment, and class action disputes for entertainment, tech, and healthcare companies. Arwen\u0026rsquo;s clients rely on her expertise in trade secrets, employee mobility, partnership disputes, copyright infringement and idea theft,\u0026nbsp;defamation and high net worth litigation.\u0026nbsp; They also count on her extensive knowledge of emergency and provisional remedies, the anti-SLAPP statute, class action procedures, and trial motion practice and appeals.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Arwen also serves as the Managing Partner of the firm's Los Angeles office.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArwen's publications and presentations include:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Powerful Women in the Courtroom,\u0026rdquo; Daily Journal\u0026rsquo;s Women Leadership in Law Forum, May 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eEpic Systems Corp. v. Lewis\u003c/em\u003e and Its Aftermath and Impact on Class Action Waivers,\u0026rdquo; Bridgeport Continuing Education, January 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Launching Your Career: Keys to Success in a Law Firm,\u0026rdquo; UCLA Law Women LEAD Summit, February 2017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;Navigating California\u0026rsquo;s Parental Leave Laws,\u0026rdquo; California Minority Counsel Program, June 2018 (with Noah Perez-Silverman)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;California's No Aid Clause and Religious Endorsement: Davies v. County of Los Angeles,\u0026rdquo; California Minority Counsel Program, July 2016 (with Kimberly M. Singer)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;Overpriced Security? A Review of the SEC\u0026rsquo;s Proposed Rulemaking on \u0026lsquo;Pay-to-Play,\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo; American Bar Association\u0026rsquo;s Fourth Annual National Institute on Securities Fraud, October 2009 (with David K. Willingham and Jeffrey H. Rutherford)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"arwen-johnson","email":"arwen.johnson@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eWon motion to compel arbitration on behalf of tech client of putative class action alleging misclassification of couriers and raising novel legal theories relates to COVID-19\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon nearly all claims tried to the jury in fraud, interference, and trade secret dispute between tech startup and government contractor\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon bench trial on claims involving an employee\u0026rsquo;s entitlement to Labor Code penalties by securing a nonsuit after the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s opening statement\u0026mdash;including the client\u0026rsquo;s attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, a rare employer win\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in multi-million-dollar partnership dispute. The court\u0026rsquo;s order specifically complimented the \u0026ldquo;excellent briefing,\u0026rdquo; which ultimately led to a $350,000 fee award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment on behalf of the film studio and filmmakers behind the blockbuster film trilogy\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Matrix\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement lawsuit\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a permanent injunction against the County of Los Angeles in federal court, thereby preventing an attempt to include an overtly religious symbol on the County Seal. This case was highlighted as a signature matter by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated wage-and-hour and disability discrimination class action allegations in a twenty-count action brought by a former employee of a film studio client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in a major case brought against a large energy company by a real estate developer alleging $50-100 million in lost sales\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated all claims at the pleading stage in multiple trust and estates litigations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully prosecuted and defended multiple anti-SLAPP motions, at both the trial and appellate levels, resulting in complete victories\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFavorably resolved multiple partnership dissolution actions and employment disputes on behalf of major corporations and small businesses\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":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Johnson","nick_name":"Arwen","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Dean D. Pregerson, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"2006 - 2007"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Harry Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","years_held":"2007 - 2008"}],"first_name":"Arwen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2162,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2006-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"First Amendment Award, ACLU Foundation of Southern California","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Daily Journal, Top 40 Under 40","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Fellow of the Legal Council on Legal Diversity","detail":"2018"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyers – Rising Star in Business Litigation","detail":"2013–present"},{"title":"Up-and-Coming 50 – Women Southern California Rising Stars ","detail":"2015–present"},{"title":"Up-and-Coming 100 – Southern California Rising Stars ","detail":"2015–present"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/arwen-johnson-713283119/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":95,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eArwen Johnson is a trial lawyer\u0026nbsp;who delivers results in high-stakes cases and regularly wins dispositive motions.\u0026nbsp; Arwen specializes in intellectual property, employment, and class action disputes for entertainment, tech, and healthcare companies. Arwen\u0026rsquo;s clients rely on her expertise in trade secrets, employee mobility, partnership disputes, copyright infringement and idea theft,\u0026nbsp;defamation and high net worth litigation.\u0026nbsp; They also count on her extensive knowledge of emergency and provisional remedies, the anti-SLAPP statute, class action procedures, and trial motion practice and appeals.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Arwen also serves as the Managing Partner of the firm's Los Angeles office.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArwen's publications and presentations include:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Powerful Women in the Courtroom,\u0026rdquo; Daily Journal\u0026rsquo;s Women Leadership in Law Forum, May 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eEpic Systems Corp. v. Lewis\u003c/em\u003e and Its Aftermath and Impact on Class Action Waivers,\u0026rdquo; Bridgeport Continuing Education, January 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Launching Your Career: Keys to Success in a Law Firm,\u0026rdquo; UCLA Law Women LEAD Summit, February 2017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;Navigating California\u0026rsquo;s Parental Leave Laws,\u0026rdquo; California Minority Counsel Program, June 2018 (with Noah Perez-Silverman)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;California's No Aid Clause and Religious Endorsement: Davies v. County of Los Angeles,\u0026rdquo; California Minority Counsel Program, July 2016 (with Kimberly M. Singer)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;Overpriced Security? A Review of the SEC\u0026rsquo;s Proposed Rulemaking on \u0026lsquo;Pay-to-Play,\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo; American Bar Association\u0026rsquo;s Fourth Annual National Institute on Securities Fraud, October 2009 (with David K. Willingham and Jeffrey H. Rutherford)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eWon motion to compel arbitration on behalf of tech client of putative class action alleging misclassification of couriers and raising novel legal theories relates to COVID-19\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon nearly all claims tried to the jury in fraud, interference, and trade secret dispute between tech startup and government contractor\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon bench trial on claims involving an employee\u0026rsquo;s entitlement to Labor Code penalties by securing a nonsuit after the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s opening statement\u0026mdash;including the client\u0026rsquo;s attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, a rare employer win\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in multi-million-dollar partnership dispute. The court\u0026rsquo;s order specifically complimented the \u0026ldquo;excellent briefing,\u0026rdquo; which ultimately led to a $350,000 fee award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment on behalf of the film studio and filmmakers behind the blockbuster film trilogy\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Matrix\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement lawsuit\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a permanent injunction against the County of Los Angeles in federal court, thereby preventing an attempt to include an overtly religious symbol on the County Seal. This case was highlighted as a signature matter by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated wage-and-hour and disability discrimination class action allegations in a twenty-count action brought by a former employee of a film studio client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in a major case brought against a large energy company by a real estate developer alleging $50-100 million in lost sales\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated all claims at the pleading stage in multiple trust and estates litigations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully prosecuted and defended multiple anti-SLAPP motions, at both the trial and appellate levels, resulting in complete victories\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFavorably resolved multiple partnership dissolution actions and employment disputes on behalf of major corporations and small businesses\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"First Amendment Award, ACLU Foundation of Southern California","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Daily Journal, Top 40 Under 40","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Fellow of the Legal Council on Legal Diversity","detail":"2018"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyers – Rising Star in Business Litigation","detail":"2013–present"},{"title":"Up-and-Coming 50 – Women Southern California Rising Stars ","detail":"2015–present"},{"title":"Up-and-Coming 100 – Southern California Rising Stars ","detail":"2015–present"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8091}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-16T20:31:16.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-16T20:31:16.000Z","searchable_text":"Johnson{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"First Amendment Award, ACLU Foundation of Southern California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal, Top 40 Under 40\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Fellow of the Legal Council on Legal Diversity\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Southern California Super Lawyers – Rising Star in Business Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2013–present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Up-and-Coming 50 – Women Southern California Rising Stars \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2015–present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Up-and-Coming 100 – Southern California Rising Stars \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2015–present\"}{{ FIELD }}Won motion to compel arbitration on behalf of tech client of putative class action alleging misclassification of couriers and raising novel legal theories relates to COVID-19{{ FIELD }}Won nearly all claims tried to the jury in fraud, interference, and trade secret dispute between tech startup and government contractor{{ FIELD }}Won bench trial on claims involving an employee’s entitlement to Labor Code penalties by securing a nonsuit after the plaintiff’s opening statement—including the client’s attorneys’ fees, a rare employer win{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment in multi-million-dollar partnership dispute. The court’s order specifically complimented the “excellent briefing,” which ultimately led to a $350,000 fee award.{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment on behalf of the film studio and filmmakers behind the blockbuster film trilogy The Matrix in a copyright infringement lawsuit{{ FIELD }}Won a permanent injunction against the County of Los Angeles in federal court, thereby preventing an attempt to include an overtly religious symbol on the County Seal. This case was highlighted as a signature matter by Law360{{ FIELD }}Defeated wage-and-hour and disability discrimination class action allegations in a twenty-count action brought by a former employee of a film studio client{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment in a major case brought against a large energy company by a real estate developer alleging $50-100 million in lost sales{{ FIELD }}Defeated all claims at the pleading stage in multiple trust and estates litigations{{ FIELD }}Successfully prosecuted and defended multiple anti-SLAPP motions, at both the trial and appellate levels, resulting in complete victories{{ FIELD }}Favorably resolved multiple partnership dissolution actions and employment disputes on behalf of major corporations and small businesses{{ FIELD }}Arwen Johnson is a trial lawyer who delivers results in high-stakes cases and regularly wins dispositive motions.  Arwen specializes in intellectual property, employment, and class action disputes for entertainment, tech, and healthcare companies. Arwen’s clients rely on her expertise in trade secrets, employee mobility, partnership disputes, copyright infringement and idea theft, defamation and high net worth litigation.  They also count on her extensive knowledge of emergency and provisional remedies, the anti-SLAPP statute, class action procedures, and trial motion practice and appeals.  Arwen also serves as the Managing Partner of the firm's Los Angeles office. \nArwen's publications and presentations include:\n\nSpeaker, “Powerful Women in the Courtroom,” Daily Journal’s Women Leadership in Law Forum, May 2019\nSpeaker, “Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis and Its Aftermath and Impact on Class Action Waivers,” Bridgeport Continuing Education, January 2019\nSpeaker, “Launching Your Career: Keys to Success in a Law Firm,” UCLA Law Women LEAD Summit, February 2017\nAuthor, “Navigating California’s Parental Leave Laws,” California Minority Counsel Program, June 2018 (with Noah Perez-Silverman)\nAuthor, “California's No Aid Clause and Religious Endorsement: Davies v. County of Los Angeles,” California Minority Counsel Program, July 2016 (with Kimberly M. Singer)\nAuthor, “Overpriced Security? A Review of the SEC’s Proposed Rulemaking on ‘Pay-to-Play,’” American Bar Association’s Fourth Annual National Institute on Securities Fraud, October 2009 (with David K. Willingham and Jeffrey H. Rutherford)\n Partner First Amendment Award, ACLU Foundation of Southern California 2017 Daily Journal, Top 40 Under 40 2017 Fellow of the Legal Council on Legal Diversity 2018 Southern California Super Lawyers – Rising Star in Business Litigation 2013–present Up-and-Coming 50 – Women Southern California Rising Stars  2015–present Up-and-Coming 100 – Southern California Rising Stars  2015–present Rice University  University of California-Los Angeles UCLA School of Law 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 Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California California Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles California JNE Commission ABA Leadership, Judicial Intern Opportunity Program (JIOP), Regional Co-Chair for Los Angeles Delegate, LACBA California Conference of Bar Associations Vice President, Advisory Board of the Western Center on Law and Poverty (2013–2016) California Women Lawyers Law Clerk, Hon. Dean D. Pregerson, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Law Clerk, Hon. Harry Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Won motion to compel arbitration on behalf of tech client of putative class action alleging misclassification of couriers and raising novel legal theories relates to COVID-19 Won nearly all claims tried to the jury in fraud, interference, and trade secret dispute between tech startup and government contractor Won bench trial on claims involving an employee’s entitlement to Labor Code penalties by securing a nonsuit after the plaintiff’s opening statement—including the client’s attorneys’ fees, a rare employer win Won summary judgment in multi-million-dollar partnership dispute. The court’s order specifically complimented the “excellent briefing,” which ultimately led to a $350,000 fee award. Won summary judgment on behalf of the film studio and filmmakers behind the blockbuster film trilogy The Matrix in a copyright infringement lawsuit Won a permanent injunction against the County of Los Angeles in federal court, thereby preventing an attempt to include an overtly religious symbol on the County Seal. This case was highlighted as a signature matter by Law360 Defeated wage-and-hour and disability discrimination class action allegations in a twenty-count action brought by a former employee of a film studio client Won summary judgment in a major case brought against a large energy company by a real estate developer alleging $50-100 million in lost sales Defeated all claims at the pleading stage in multiple trust and estates litigations Successfully prosecuted and defended multiple anti-SLAPP motions, at both the trial and appellate levels, resulting in complete victories Favorably resolved multiple partnership dissolution actions and employment disputes on behalf of major corporations and small businesses","searchable_name":"Arwen R. Johnson","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":436388,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2857,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Johnson litigates large, complex cases in California state and federal courts. As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul represents clients in appellate proceedings. Paul's work for clients in trial courts often involves unsettled legal issues or complex civil procedure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul's litigation experience\u0026mdash;over 30 years\u0026mdash;includes all phases of appellate-court and trial-court proceedings. Certified by the State Bar of California's Board of Legal Specialization as a specialist in appellate law, Paul has argued before state and federal appellate courts inside and outside California. Paul previously chaired the Committee on Appellate Courts of the State Bar of California and has presented on appellate law and practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul's experience as lead trial counsel (both bench and jury) informs his work as an appellate advisor on trial teams. At the trial court level, Paul also consults on strategy and handles procedural matters such as personal jurisdiction, \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eforum non conveniens\u003c/em\u003e, state-vs.-federal jurisdiction, and choice of law, often in mass litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul's broad substantive-law experience includes administrative review, antitrust, arbitration review, employment, energy, environmental, infrastructure, intellectual property, land use, mass torts, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, other product liability, punitive damages, reputation, securities and constitutional issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"paul-johnson","email":"pjohnson@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eBrown v. McKesson Corporation\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. B266990, Jan. 26, 2017) (affirming judgment against dozens of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs based on exclusion of medical expert opinion on general causation).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eOrrell v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP\u003c/em\u003e (9th Cir. No. 14-56845, Oct. 28, 2016) (affirming judgment against hundreds of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs based on exclusion of medical expert opinion on general causation).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eNon-California-Resident Plaintiffs v. AstraZeneca LP\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. B260895, July 15, 2016) (obtaining dismissal of appeal by hundreds of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs who challenged \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eforum non conveniens\u003c/em\u003e dismissal).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eSuffolk County Water Authority v. The Dow Chemical Company\u003c/em\u003e, 991 N.Y.S.2d 613, 121 A.D.3d 50 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept., 2014) (dismissing numerous well-water contamination claims by a major public water supplier).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eMacasa v. Dole Food Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. B245138, 2014) (rejecting assertion of longer, foreign limitations period by several thousand plaintiffs who alleged toxic exposures in the Philippines; affirming dismissal of claims as untimely).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eLaguna v. Dole Food Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. B233497, 2014) (affirming decision to vacate judgment for plaintiffs upon finding fraudulent scheme to assert toxic exposures at Nicaraguan banana farms).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eBombardier Recreational Products, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Canada ULC\u003c/em\u003e, 216 Cal. App. 4th 591, 157 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66 (2013) (holding successor to Canadian component manufacturer not subject to personal jurisdiction in California product liability action).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eHH, LLC\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eWestLB AG\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. D060531, 2012) (holding that cross-complaint in real estate financing litigation was not a SLAPP suit).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eEnayati v. UOP, LLC\u003c/em\u003e (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC430304, 2012) (nonsuit judgment based on legal standard of care for engineering professionals).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ePacific Rim Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Aon Risk Insurances Services West, Inc.,\u003c/em\u003e 203 Cal. App. 4th 1278, 183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 294(2012) (holding that insurance broker did not have ongoing duty to additional insured).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eCity of Modesto etc. et al. v. The Dow Chemical Company et al.\u003c/em\u003e (San Francisco County Super. Ct. Nos. 999345, 999643; Cal. Ct. App. No. A134419 \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e) (post-trial motions; appellate matters); \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eThe Dow Chemical Company v. Superior Court\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. A125426, 2009) (alternative writ granted and followed by trial court; partial judgment following mistrial).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDow Chemical Canada ULC v. Superior Court\u003c/em\u003e, 202 Cal. App. 4th 170, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 597 (2011) (holding successor to Canadian component manufacturer not subject to personal jurisdiction in California product liability action).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDow Chemical Canada ULC v. Fandino\u003c/em\u003e, 131 S. Ct. 3088 (June 28, 2011, No. 10-250) (GVR: granting certiorari petition challenging personal jurisdiction, vacating judgment, and remanding for further consideration in light of \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eJ. McIntyre\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eJ. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro\u003c/em\u003e, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (amicus brief for Dow Chemical Canada ULC, asserting due process insufficiency of stream-of-commerce test for personal jurisdiction).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eJones v. ConocoPhillips\u003c/em\u003e, 198 Cal. App. 4th 1187, 130 Cal. Rptr. 3d 571 (2011) (addressing pleading standards for toxic-tort actions).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eAbrego v. The Dow Chemical Company\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. B222612, 2010) (affirming forum non conveniens dismissals).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eGCM Air Group LLC v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.\u003c/em\u003e (9th Cir. No. 09-15825, 2010) (defending property contamination claims).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eSafeway Inc. v. Pivotal Sales Company\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. A116637, 2010) (commercial and antitrust issues; judgment for client affirmed).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eClayworth v. Pfizer Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 49 Cal. 4th 758, 233 P.2d 1066, 111 Cal. Rptr. 3d 666 (2010) (industry-wide pharmaceutical antitrust litigation; blocking \"pass-on\" evidence), (Cal. Ct. App. No. A131804, 2012) (affirming summary judgment on merits for defendants), (Cal. Ct. App. No. A132527, 2014) (affirming award of costs to defendants).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eTexaco Inc. v. Superior Court\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. B216264, 2009) (alternative writ granted and followed by trial court; dismissal of asbestos action based on construction of California borrowing statute).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eI\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003en re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI)\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Pa., MDL Docket No. 875) (litigation of federal jurisdiction, government contractor defense).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eLongs Drug Stores California, Inc. v. Shea\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 414, 2005 WL 91682 (2005) (overcoming anti-SLAPP opposition to business defamation claim).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDrolla v. ChevronTexaco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 11025, 2004 WL 2750328 (2004) (defense of maritime employment claim alleging disability discrimination).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eBerry, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.\u003c/em\u003e (N.D. Cal., No. C 00-1353 SBA, 2002) (dismissal of class action claims alleging employment discrimination), 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25920, 2003 WL 23098426 (9th Cir. 2003) (defense of individual discrimination claims).\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":90}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Johnson","nick_name":"Paul","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Paul","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow ","detail":"American Bar Foundation"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulrichardjohnson/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Johnson litigates large, complex cases in California state and federal courts. As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul represents clients in appellate proceedings. Paul's work for clients in trial courts often involves unsettled legal issues or complex civil procedure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul's litigation experience\u0026mdash;over 30 years\u0026mdash;includes all phases of appellate-court and trial-court proceedings. Certified by the State Bar of California's Board of Legal Specialization as a specialist in appellate law, Paul has argued before state and federal appellate courts inside and outside California. Paul previously chaired the Committee on Appellate Courts of the State Bar of California and has presented on appellate law and practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul's experience as lead trial counsel (both bench and jury) informs his work as an appellate advisor on trial teams. At the trial court level, Paul also consults on strategy and handles procedural matters such as personal jurisdiction, \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eforum non conveniens\u003c/em\u003e, state-vs.-federal jurisdiction, and choice of law, often in mass litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul's broad substantive-law experience includes administrative review, antitrust, arbitration review, employment, energy, environmental, infrastructure, intellectual property, land use, mass torts, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, other product liability, punitive damages, reputation, securities and constitutional issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eBrown v. McKesson Corporation\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. B266990, Jan. 26, 2017) (affirming judgment against dozens of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs based on exclusion of medical expert opinion on general causation).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eOrrell v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP\u003c/em\u003e (9th Cir. No. 14-56845, Oct. 28, 2016) (affirming judgment against hundreds of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs based on exclusion of medical expert opinion on general causation).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eNon-California-Resident Plaintiffs v. AstraZeneca LP\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. B260895, July 15, 2016) (obtaining dismissal of appeal by hundreds of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs who challenged \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eforum non conveniens\u003c/em\u003e dismissal).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eSuffolk County Water Authority v. The Dow Chemical Company\u003c/em\u003e, 991 N.Y.S.2d 613, 121 A.D.3d 50 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept., 2014) (dismissing numerous well-water contamination claims by a major public water supplier).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eMacasa v. Dole Food Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. B245138, 2014) (rejecting assertion of longer, foreign limitations period by several thousand plaintiffs who alleged toxic exposures in the Philippines; affirming dismissal of claims as untimely).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eLaguna v. Dole Food Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. B233497, 2014) (affirming decision to vacate judgment for plaintiffs upon finding fraudulent scheme to assert toxic exposures at Nicaraguan banana farms).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eBombardier Recreational Products, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Canada ULC\u003c/em\u003e, 216 Cal. App. 4th 591, 157 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66 (2013) (holding successor to Canadian component manufacturer not subject to personal jurisdiction in California product liability action).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eHH, LLC\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eWestLB AG\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. D060531, 2012) (holding that cross-complaint in real estate financing litigation was not a SLAPP suit).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eEnayati v. UOP, LLC\u003c/em\u003e (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC430304, 2012) (nonsuit judgment based on legal standard of care for engineering professionals).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ePacific Rim Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Aon Risk Insurances Services West, Inc.,\u003c/em\u003e 203 Cal. App. 4th 1278, 183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 294(2012) (holding that insurance broker did not have ongoing duty to additional insured).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eCity of Modesto etc. et al. v. The Dow Chemical Company et al.\u003c/em\u003e (San Francisco County Super. Ct. Nos. 999345, 999643; Cal. Ct. App. No. A134419 \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e) (post-trial motions; appellate matters); \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eThe Dow Chemical Company v. Superior Court\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. A125426, 2009) (alternative writ granted and followed by trial court; partial judgment following mistrial).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDow Chemical Canada ULC v. Superior Court\u003c/em\u003e, 202 Cal. App. 4th 170, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 597 (2011) (holding successor to Canadian component manufacturer not subject to personal jurisdiction in California product liability action).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDow Chemical Canada ULC v. Fandino\u003c/em\u003e, 131 S. Ct. 3088 (June 28, 2011, No. 10-250) (GVR: granting certiorari petition challenging personal jurisdiction, vacating judgment, and remanding for further consideration in light of \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eJ. McIntyre\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eJ. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro\u003c/em\u003e, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (amicus brief for Dow Chemical Canada ULC, asserting due process insufficiency of stream-of-commerce test for personal jurisdiction).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eJones v. ConocoPhillips\u003c/em\u003e, 198 Cal. App. 4th 1187, 130 Cal. Rptr. 3d 571 (2011) (addressing pleading standards for toxic-tort actions).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eAbrego v. The Dow Chemical Company\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. B222612, 2010) (affirming forum non conveniens dismissals).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eGCM Air Group LLC v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.\u003c/em\u003e (9th Cir. No. 09-15825, 2010) (defending property contamination claims).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eSafeway Inc. v. Pivotal Sales Company\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. A116637, 2010) (commercial and antitrust issues; judgment for client affirmed).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eClayworth v. Pfizer Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 49 Cal. 4th 758, 233 P.2d 1066, 111 Cal. Rptr. 3d 666 (2010) (industry-wide pharmaceutical antitrust litigation; blocking \"pass-on\" evidence), (Cal. Ct. App. No. A131804, 2012) (affirming summary judgment on merits for defendants), (Cal. Ct. App. No. A132527, 2014) (affirming award of costs to defendants).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eTexaco Inc. v. Superior Court\u003c/em\u003e (Cal. Ct. App. No. B216264, 2009) (alternative writ granted and followed by trial court; dismissal of asbestos action based on construction of California borrowing statute).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eI\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003en re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI)\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Pa., MDL Docket No. 875) (litigation of federal jurisdiction, government contractor defense).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eLongs Drug Stores California, Inc. v. Shea\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 414, 2005 WL 91682 (2005) (overcoming anti-SLAPP opposition to business defamation claim).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDrolla v. ChevronTexaco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 11025, 2004 WL 2750328 (2004) (defense of maritime employment claim alleging disability discrimination).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eBerry, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.\u003c/em\u003e (N.D. Cal., No. C 00-1353 SBA, 2002) (dismissal of class action claims alleging employment discrimination), 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25920, 2003 WL 23098426 (9th Cir. 2003) (defense of individual discrimination claims).\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow ","detail":"American Bar Foundation"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4233}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:51:38.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:51:38.000Z","searchable_text":"Johnson{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Fellow \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Bar Foundation\"}{{ FIELD }}Brown v. McKesson Corporation (Cal. Ct. App. No. B266990, Jan. 26, 2017) (affirming judgment against dozens of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs based on exclusion of medical expert opinion on general causation).{{ FIELD }}Orrell v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (9th Cir. No. 14-56845, Oct. 28, 2016) (affirming judgment against hundreds of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs based on exclusion of medical expert opinion on general causation).{{ FIELD }}Non-California-Resident Plaintiffs v. AstraZeneca LP (Cal. Ct. App. B260895, July 15, 2016) (obtaining dismissal of appeal by hundreds of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs who challenged forum non conveniens dismissal).{{ FIELD }}Suffolk County Water Authority v. The Dow Chemical Company, 991 N.Y.S.2d 613, 121 A.D.3d 50 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept., 2014) (dismissing numerous well-water contamination claims by a major public water supplier).{{ FIELD }}Macasa v. Dole Food Company, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. No. B245138, 2014) (rejecting assertion of longer, foreign limitations period by several thousand plaintiffs who alleged toxic exposures in the Philippines; affirming dismissal of claims as untimely).{{ FIELD }}Laguna v. Dole Food Company, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. No. B233497, 2014) (affirming decision to vacate judgment for plaintiffs upon finding fraudulent scheme to assert toxic exposures at Nicaraguan banana farms).{{ FIELD }}Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Canada ULC, 216 Cal. App. 4th 591, 157 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66 (2013) (holding successor to Canadian component manufacturer not subject to personal jurisdiction in California product liability action).{{ FIELD }}HH, LLC v. WestLB AG (Cal. Ct. App. No. D060531, 2012) (holding that cross-complaint in real estate financing litigation was not a SLAPP suit).{{ FIELD }}Enayati v. UOP, LLC (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC430304, 2012) (nonsuit judgment based on legal standard of care for engineering professionals).{{ FIELD }}Pacific Rim Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Aon Risk Insurances Services West, Inc., 203 Cal. App. 4th 1278, 183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 294(2012) (holding that insurance broker did not have ongoing duty to additional insured).{{ FIELD }}City of Modesto etc. et al. v. The Dow Chemical Company et al. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. Nos. 999345, 999643; Cal. Ct. App. No. A134419 et al.) (post-trial motions; appellate matters); The Dow Chemical Company v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. No. A125426, 2009) (alternative writ granted and followed by trial court; partial judgment following mistrial).{{ FIELD }}Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. Superior Court, 202 Cal. App. 4th 170, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 597 (2011) (holding successor to Canadian component manufacturer not subject to personal jurisdiction in California product liability action).{{ FIELD }}Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. Fandino, 131 S. Ct. 3088 (June 28, 2011, No. 10-250) (GVR: granting certiorari petition challenging personal jurisdiction, vacating judgment, and remanding for further consideration in light of J. McIntyre).{{ FIELD }}J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (amicus brief for Dow Chemical Canada ULC, asserting due process insufficiency of stream-of-commerce test for personal jurisdiction).{{ FIELD }}Jones v. ConocoPhillips, 198 Cal. App. 4th 1187, 130 Cal. Rptr. 3d 571 (2011) (addressing pleading standards for toxic-tort actions).{{ FIELD }}Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Company (Cal. Ct. App. No. B222612, 2010) (affirming forum non conveniens dismissals).{{ FIELD }}GCM Air Group LLC v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (9th Cir. No. 09-15825, 2010) (defending property contamination claims).{{ FIELD }}Safeway Inc. v. Pivotal Sales Company (Cal. Ct. App. No. A116637, 2010) (commercial and antitrust issues; judgment for client affirmed).{{ FIELD }}Clayworth v. Pfizer Inc., 49 Cal. 4th 758, 233 P.2d 1066, 111 Cal. Rptr. 3d 666 (2010) (industry-wide pharmaceutical antitrust litigation; blocking \"pass-on\" evidence), (Cal. Ct. App. No. A131804, 2012) (affirming summary judgment on merits for defendants), (Cal. Ct. App. No. A132527, 2014) (affirming award of costs to defendants).{{ FIELD }}Texaco Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. No. B216264, 2009) (alternative writ granted and followed by trial court; dismissal of asbestos action based on construction of California borrowing statute).{{ FIELD }}In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI) (E.D. Pa., MDL Docket No. 875) (litigation of federal jurisdiction, government contractor defense).{{ FIELD }}Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. v. Shea, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 414, 2005 WL 91682 (2005) (overcoming anti-SLAPP opposition to business defamation claim).{{ FIELD }}Drolla v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 11025, 2004 WL 2750328 (2004) (defense of maritime employment claim alleging disability discrimination).{{ FIELD }}Berry, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (N.D. Cal., No. C 00-1353 SBA, 2002) (dismissal of class action claims alleging employment discrimination), 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25920, 2003 WL 23098426 (9th Cir. 2003) (defense of individual discrimination claims).{{ FIELD }}Paul Johnson litigates large, complex cases in California state and federal courts. As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul represents clients in appellate proceedings. Paul's work for clients in trial courts often involves unsettled legal issues or complex civil procedure.\n\nPaul's litigation experience—over 30 years—includes all phases of appellate-court and trial-court proceedings. Certified by the State Bar of California's Board of Legal Specialization as a specialist in appellate law, Paul has argued before state and federal appellate courts inside and outside California. Paul previously chaired the Committee on Appellate Courts of the State Bar of California and has presented on appellate law and practice.\nPaul's experience as lead trial counsel (both bench and jury) informs his work as an appellate advisor on trial teams. At the trial court level, Paul also consults on strategy and handles procedural matters such as personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, state-vs.-federal jurisdiction, and choice of law, often in mass litigation.\nPaul's broad substantive-law experience includes administrative review, antitrust, arbitration review, employment, energy, environmental, infrastructure, intellectual property, land use, mass torts, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, other product liability, punitive damages, reputation, securities and constitutional issues.\nPaul is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation. Paul R. Johnson Partner Fellow  American Bar Foundation Yale University Yale Law School University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley, School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 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 State Bar of California Certified Specialist, Appellate Law (State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization) Brown v. McKesson Corporation (Cal. Ct. App. No. B266990, Jan. 26, 2017) (affirming judgment against dozens of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs based on exclusion of medical expert opinion on general causation). Orrell v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (9th Cir. No. 14-56845, Oct. 28, 2016) (affirming judgment against hundreds of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs based on exclusion of medical expert opinion on general causation). Non-California-Resident Plaintiffs v. AstraZeneca LP (Cal. Ct. App. B260895, July 15, 2016) (obtaining dismissal of appeal by hundreds of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs who challenged forum non conveniens dismissal). Suffolk County Water Authority v. The Dow Chemical Company, 991 N.Y.S.2d 613, 121 A.D.3d 50 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept., 2014) (dismissing numerous well-water contamination claims by a major public water supplier). Macasa v. Dole Food Company, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. No. B245138, 2014) (rejecting assertion of longer, foreign limitations period by several thousand plaintiffs who alleged toxic exposures in the Philippines; affirming dismissal of claims as untimely). Laguna v. Dole Food Company, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. No. B233497, 2014) (affirming decision to vacate judgment for plaintiffs upon finding fraudulent scheme to assert toxic exposures at Nicaraguan banana farms). Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Canada ULC, 216 Cal. App. 4th 591, 157 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66 (2013) (holding successor to Canadian component manufacturer not subject to personal jurisdiction in California product liability action). HH, LLC v. WestLB AG (Cal. Ct. App. No. D060531, 2012) (holding that cross-complaint in real estate financing litigation was not a SLAPP suit). Enayati v. UOP, LLC (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC430304, 2012) (nonsuit judgment based on legal standard of care for engineering professionals). Pacific Rim Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Aon Risk Insurances Services West, Inc., 203 Cal. App. 4th 1278, 183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 294(2012) (holding that insurance broker did not have ongoing duty to additional insured). City of Modesto etc. et al. v. The Dow Chemical Company et al. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. Nos. 999345, 999643; Cal. Ct. App. No. A134419 et al.) (post-trial motions; appellate matters); The Dow Chemical Company v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. No. A125426, 2009) (alternative writ granted and followed by trial court; partial judgment following mistrial). Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. Superior Court, 202 Cal. App. 4th 170, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 597 (2011) (holding successor to Canadian component manufacturer not subject to personal jurisdiction in California product liability action). Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. Fandino, 131 S. Ct. 3088 (June 28, 2011, No. 10-250) (GVR: granting certiorari petition challenging personal jurisdiction, vacating judgment, and remanding for further consideration in light of J. McIntyre). J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (amicus brief for Dow Chemical Canada ULC, asserting due process insufficiency of stream-of-commerce test for personal jurisdiction). Jones v. ConocoPhillips, 198 Cal. App. 4th 1187, 130 Cal. Rptr. 3d 571 (2011) (addressing pleading standards for toxic-tort actions). Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Company (Cal. Ct. App. No. B222612, 2010) (affirming forum non conveniens dismissals). GCM Air Group LLC v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (9th Cir. No. 09-15825, 2010) (defending property contamination claims). Safeway Inc. v. Pivotal Sales Company (Cal. Ct. App. No. A116637, 2010) (commercial and antitrust issues; judgment for client affirmed). Clayworth v. Pfizer Inc., 49 Cal. 4th 758, 233 P.2d 1066, 111 Cal. Rptr. 3d 666 (2010) (industry-wide pharmaceutical antitrust litigation; blocking \"pass-on\" evidence), (Cal. Ct. App. No. A131804, 2012) (affirming summary judgment on merits for defendants), (Cal. Ct. App. No. A132527, 2014) (affirming award of costs to defendants). Texaco Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. No. B216264, 2009) (alternative writ granted and followed by trial court; dismissal of asbestos action based on construction of California borrowing statute). In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI) (E.D. Pa., MDL Docket No. 875) (litigation of federal jurisdiction, government contractor defense). Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. v. Shea, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 414, 2005 WL 91682 (2005) (overcoming anti-SLAPP opposition to business defamation claim). Drolla v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 11025, 2004 WL 2750328 (2004) (defense of maritime employment claim alleging disability discrimination). Berry, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (N.D. Cal., No. C 00-1353 SBA, 2002) (dismissal of class action claims alleging employment discrimination), 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25920, 2003 WL 23098426 (9th Cir. 2003) (defense of individual discrimination claims).","searchable_name":"Paul R. Johnson","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":444753,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6370,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRebecca Johns is an attorney in\u0026nbsp;the FDA and Life Sciences practice group. Rebecca is\u0026nbsp;a litigator who\u0026nbsp;focuses on defending food and\u0026nbsp;beverage, dietary supplement, and consumer product manufacturers in competitor and consumer class action litigation.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRebecca regularly practices in state and federal courts in cases involving false advertising, including cases relating\u0026nbsp;to alleged contaminants in products (such as heavy metals and\u0026nbsp;glyphosate), nutrition and health claims, sustainability/environmental/green/ESG claims, claims involving \"natural\"\u0026nbsp;products, alleged violations of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, and Lanham Act, state and federal warranty claims, and violations of state consumer protection laws. Rebecca also has experience litigating complex cases in the pet food, consumer electronics,\u0026nbsp;and technology industries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRebecca received her JD from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, where she was a department chief for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWomen\u0026rsquo;s Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e. In law school, Rebecca served as a writing adviser to first year legal research and writing students and worked as a faculty research assistant. Rebecca received a BA in philosophy from Scripps College.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"rebecca-johns","email":"rjohns@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTyrnauer v. Ben \u0026amp; Jerry's Homemade, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2024 WL 3346840 (D. Vt. July 8, 2024) Motion to dismiss granted re nationwide consumer class action complaint alleging false advertising regarding allegations of migrant child labor in dairy farms in Vermont.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., -- F. Supp. 4th --, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 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 (\u003cem\u003eMantikas\u003c/em\u003e) and Seventh (\u003cem\u003eBell\u003c/em\u003e) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/strong\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\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\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\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory in the Northern District of Illinois when court 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. The court 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\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\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 amendment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 100 F.4th 419 (2d Cir. 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, 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\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\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"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Johns","nick_name":"Rebecca","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Rebecca","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2162,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2013-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/rebecca-johns-2966b188","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRebecca Johns is an attorney in\u0026nbsp;the FDA and Life Sciences practice group. Rebecca is\u0026nbsp;a litigator who\u0026nbsp;focuses on defending food and\u0026nbsp;beverage, dietary supplement, and consumer product manufacturers in competitor and consumer class action litigation.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRebecca regularly practices in state and federal courts in cases involving false advertising, including cases relating\u0026nbsp;to alleged contaminants in products (such as heavy metals and\u0026nbsp;glyphosate), nutrition and health claims, sustainability/environmental/green/ESG claims, claims involving \"natural\"\u0026nbsp;products, alleged violations of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, and Lanham Act, state and federal warranty claims, and violations of state consumer protection laws. Rebecca also has experience litigating complex cases in the pet food, consumer electronics,\u0026nbsp;and technology industries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRebecca received her JD from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, where she was a department chief for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWomen\u0026rsquo;s Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e. In law school, Rebecca served as a writing adviser to first year legal research and writing students and worked as a faculty research assistant. Rebecca received a BA in philosophy from Scripps College.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTyrnauer v. Ben \u0026amp; Jerry's Homemade, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2024 WL 3346840 (D. Vt. July 8, 2024) Motion to dismiss granted re nationwide consumer class action complaint alleging false advertising regarding allegations of migrant child labor in dairy farms in Vermont.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., -- F. Supp. 4th --, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 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 (\u003cem\u003eMantikas\u003c/em\u003e) and Seventh (\u003cem\u003eBell\u003c/em\u003e) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/strong\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\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\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\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory in the Northern District of Illinois when court 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. The court 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\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\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 amendment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 100 F.4th 419 (2d Cir. 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, 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\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\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"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10077}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-01-02T18:29:26.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-02T18:29:26.000Z","searchable_text":"Johns{{ FIELD }}Tyrnauer v. Ben \u0026amp; Jerry's Homemade, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2024 WL 3346840 (D. Vt. July 8, 2024) Motion to dismiss granted re nationwide consumer class action complaint alleging false advertising regarding allegations of migrant child labor in dairy farms in Vermont.{{ FIELD }}Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., -- F. Supp. 4th --, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 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 }}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 }}Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory in the Northern District of Illinois when court 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. The court granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.{{ 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 amendment.{{ FIELD }}Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, 100 F.4th 419 (2d Cir. 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 action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products.{{ 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 }}Rebecca Johns is an attorney in the FDA and Life Sciences practice group. Rebecca is a litigator who focuses on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement, and consumer product manufacturers in competitor and consumer class action litigation. \nRebecca regularly practices in state and federal courts in cases involving false advertising, including cases relating to alleged contaminants in products (such as heavy metals and glyphosate), nutrition and health claims, sustainability/environmental/green/ESG claims, claims involving \"natural\" products, alleged violations of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, and Lanham Act, state and federal warranty claims, and violations of state consumer protection laws. Rebecca also has experience litigating complex cases in the pet food, consumer electronics, and technology industries.\nRebecca received her JD from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, where she was a department chief for the Women’s Law Journal. In law school, Rebecca served as a writing adviser to first year legal research and writing students and worked as a faculty research assistant. Rebecca received a BA in philosophy from Scripps College. Counsel Scripps College  University of California-Los Angeles UCLA School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 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 Tyrnauer v. Ben \u0026amp; Jerry's Homemade, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2024 WL 3346840 (D. Vt. July 8, 2024) Motion to dismiss granted re nationwide consumer class action complaint alleging false advertising regarding allegations of migrant child labor in dairy farms in Vermont. Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., -- F. Supp. 4th --, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 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). 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. Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory in the Northern District of Illinois when court 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. The court granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception. 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 amendment. Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, 100 F.4th 419 (2d Cir. 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 action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products. 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.","searchable_name":"Rebecca Johns","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":446325,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5945,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChristopher Jew is a member of the firm's Healthcare practice group. He specializes in commercial managed care, complex business litigation, arbitration, and other dispute resolution matters on behalf of physicians, hospitals, and other providers. Christopher also advises clients on various health law issues, including payor contract disputes and negotiations and the No Surprises Act. Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Christopher had the honor of serving as a prosecutor in the United States Marine Corps.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristopher regularly represents healthcare providers in managed care matters and other significant disputes against managed care companies and health plans. He has extensive trial, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution experience, including as the lead prosecutor for multiple felony jury trials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Christopher was\u0026nbsp;a judge advocate in the United States Marine Corps where\u0026nbsp;he was a prosecutor, advised deploying units on law of war matters, and conducted internal investigations. Thereafter, Christopher represented clients in complex business litigation matters before specializing in managed care litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristopher received his undergraduate degree from the University of California, Davis, magna cum laude. He received his J.D. from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and his MBA from UCLA Anderson School of Management.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"christopher-jew","email":"cjew@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3236}]},"expertise":[{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":740,"guid":"740.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1187,"guid":"1187.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Jew","nick_name":"Christopher","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Christopher","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2389,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2014-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Charles","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/christophercjew/","seodescription":"Christopher Jew is a member of the firm's Healthcare practice group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":75,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChristopher Jew is a member of the firm's Healthcare practice group. He specializes in commercial managed care, complex business litigation, arbitration, and other dispute resolution matters on behalf of physicians, hospitals, and other providers. Christopher also advises clients on various health law issues, including payor contract disputes and negotiations and the No Surprises Act. Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Christopher had the honor of serving as a prosecutor in the United States Marine Corps.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristopher regularly represents healthcare providers in managed care matters and other significant disputes against managed care companies and health plans. He has extensive trial, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution experience, including as the lead prosecutor for multiple felony jury trials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Christopher was\u0026nbsp;a judge advocate in the United States Marine Corps where\u0026nbsp;he was a prosecutor, advised deploying units on law of war matters, and conducted internal investigations. Thereafter, Christopher represented clients in complex business litigation matters before specializing in managed care litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristopher received his undergraduate degree from the University of California, Davis, magna cum laude. He received his J.D. from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and his MBA from UCLA Anderson School of Management.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8771}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-03-02T21:59:45.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-02T21:59:45.000Z","searchable_text":"Jew{{ FIELD }}Christopher Jew is a member of the firm's Healthcare practice group. He specializes in commercial managed care, complex business litigation, arbitration, and other dispute resolution matters on behalf of physicians, hospitals, and other providers. Christopher also advises clients on various health law issues, including payor contract disputes and negotiations and the No Surprises Act. Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Christopher had the honor of serving as a prosecutor in the United States Marine Corps. \nChristopher regularly represents healthcare providers in managed care matters and other significant disputes against managed care companies and health plans. He has extensive trial, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution experience, including as the lead prosecutor for multiple felony jury trials.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Christopher was a judge advocate in the United States Marine Corps where he was a prosecutor, advised deploying units on law of war matters, and conducted internal investigations. Thereafter, Christopher represented clients in complex business litigation matters before specializing in managed care litigation.\nChristopher received his undergraduate degree from the University of California, Davis, magna cum laude. He received his J.D. from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and his MBA from UCLA Anderson School of Management.  Christopher Jew lawyer Senior Associate University of California, Davis University of California, Davis University of Southern California USC Gould School of Law UCLA Anderson School of Management  Central District of California California","searchable_name":"Christopher Charles Jew","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}]}}