{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":null,"extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":"women","starts_with":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"match_score_text":"8.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"morgan","first_name":"jennifer","middle_name":"m.","nick_name":"jennifer","id":444453,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":646,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJennifer Morgan has over two decades of experience advising clients on real estate private equity. She represents sponsors and institutional investors in a range of real estate investments and transactions. Jennifer co-leads King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Real Estate \u0026amp; Funds Practice Group and has served\u0026nbsp;on the firm\u0026rsquo;s managing policy committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJennifer advises clients on structuring and negotiating fund formations and other capital transactions, including private real estate investment trusts and other structured investments. She often represents real estate private equity clients in connection with joint ventures, asset and entity-level acquisitions and dispositions, and related transactions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJennifer has been named a top real estate attorney in the 2013 through 2025\u0026nbsp;editions of \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, was named by GlobeSt.com to its 2025 Rainmakers in CRE Debt, Equity \u0026amp; Finance list, and was chosen as one of \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e magazine\u0026rsquo;s Women Leaders in the Law in 2013. A regular speaker at real estate private equity conferences, Jennifer was recognized by the \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e 2016 guide in the Real Estate and Construction\u0026mdash;Real Estate category. In addition, she was named a New York Super Lawyer in 2011 and 2012 by \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, which also selected her for its list of the 2012 and 2013 Top Real Estate Women Attorneys.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJennifer is an adjunct professor of Real Estate Transactions at Columbia Business School and Columbia Law School and a member of the Board of Directors for Street Law, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jennifer-morgan","email":"jmorgan@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":26,"guid":"26.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":78,"guid":"78.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":36,"guid":"36.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1255,"guid":"1255.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1064,"guid":"1064.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Morgan","nick_name":"Jennifer","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. William C. O'Kelley, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"1995 - 1996"}],"first_name":"Jennifer","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Women of Influence Honoree ","detail":"New York Business Journal, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked Band 2 in Chambers New York Real Estate: Corporate","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Top Real Estate Attorney","detail":"Chambers USA, 2013 — 2025"},{"title":"Rainmaker in CRE Debt, Equity \u0026 Finance","detail":"GlobeSt.com, 2025"},{"title":"Leading Global Real Estate Lawyer","detail":"Lawdragon 500, 2024"},{"title":"Notable Practitioner, Investment Funds, M\u0026A and Private Equity","detail":"IFLR 1000, 2021"},{"title":"Real Estate and Construction: Real Estate ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"Women Leaders in the Law","detail":"Fortune magazine, 2013"},{"title":"Top Real Estate Women Attorneys ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2012 and 2013"},{"title":"New York Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2011 and 2012"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJennifer Morgan has over two decades of experience advising clients on real estate private equity. She represents sponsors and institutional investors in a range of real estate investments and transactions. Jennifer co-leads King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Real Estate \u0026amp; Funds Practice Group and has served\u0026nbsp;on the firm\u0026rsquo;s managing policy committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJennifer advises clients on structuring and negotiating fund formations and other capital transactions, including private real estate investment trusts and other structured investments. She often represents real estate private equity clients in connection with joint ventures, asset and entity-level acquisitions and dispositions, and related transactions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJennifer has been named a top real estate attorney in the 2013 through 2025\u0026nbsp;editions of \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, was named by GlobeSt.com to its 2025 Rainmakers in CRE Debt, Equity \u0026amp; Finance list, and was chosen as one of \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e magazine\u0026rsquo;s Women Leaders in the Law in 2013. A regular speaker at real estate private equity conferences, Jennifer was recognized by the \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e 2016 guide in the Real Estate and Construction\u0026mdash;Real Estate category. In addition, she was named a New York Super Lawyer in 2011 and 2012 by \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, which also selected her for its list of the 2012 and 2013 Top Real Estate Women Attorneys.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJennifer is an adjunct professor of Real Estate Transactions at Columbia Business School and Columbia Law School and a member of the Board of Directors for Street Law, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Women of Influence Honoree ","detail":"New York Business Journal, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked Band 2 in Chambers New York Real Estate: Corporate","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Top Real Estate Attorney","detail":"Chambers USA, 2013 — 2025"},{"title":"Rainmaker in CRE Debt, Equity \u0026 Finance","detail":"GlobeSt.com, 2025"},{"title":"Leading Global Real Estate Lawyer","detail":"Lawdragon 500, 2024"},{"title":"Notable Practitioner, Investment Funds, M\u0026A and Private Equity","detail":"IFLR 1000, 2021"},{"title":"Real Estate and Construction: Real Estate ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"Women Leaders in the Law","detail":"Fortune magazine, 2013"},{"title":"Top Real Estate Women Attorneys ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2012 and 2013"},{"title":"New York Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2011 and 2012"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5187}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-12-18T22:26:27.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-18T22:26:27.000Z","searchable_text":"Morgan{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Women of Influence Honoree \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"New York Business Journal, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 2 in Chambers New York Real Estate: Corporate\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Real Estate Attorney\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2013 — 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rainmaker in CRE Debt, Equity \u0026amp; Finance\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"GlobeSt.com, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Global Real Estate Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon 500, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Notable Practitioner, Investment Funds, M\u0026amp;A and Private Equity\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IFLR 1000, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Real Estate and Construction: Real Estate \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Women Leaders in the Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Fortune magazine, 2013\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Real Estate Women Attorneys \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2012 and 2013\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"New York Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2011 and 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}Jennifer Morgan has over two decades of experience advising clients on real estate private equity. She represents sponsors and institutional investors in a range of real estate investments and transactions. Jennifer co-leads King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Real Estate \u0026amp; Funds Practice Group and has served on the firm’s managing policy committee.\nJennifer advises clients on structuring and negotiating fund formations and other capital transactions, including private real estate investment trusts and other structured investments. She often represents real estate private equity clients in connection with joint ventures, asset and entity-level acquisitions and dispositions, and related transactions.\nJennifer has been named a top real estate attorney in the 2013 through 2025 editions of Chambers USA, was named by GlobeSt.com to its 2025 Rainmakers in CRE Debt, Equity \u0026amp; Finance list, and was chosen as one of Fortune magazine’s Women Leaders in the Law in 2013. A regular speaker at real estate private equity conferences, Jennifer was recognized by the Legal 500 2016 guide in the Real Estate and Construction—Real Estate category. In addition, she was named a New York Super Lawyer in 2011 and 2012 by Super Lawyers, which also selected her for its list of the 2012 and 2013 Top Real Estate Women Attorneys.\nJennifer is an adjunct professor of Real Estate Transactions at Columbia Business School and Columbia Law School and a member of the Board of Directors for Street Law, Inc. Partner Women of Influence Honoree  New York Business Journal, 2025 Ranked Band 2 in Chambers New York Real Estate: Corporate Chambers USA, 2025 Top Real Estate Attorney Chambers USA, 2013 — 2025 Rainmaker in CRE Debt, Equity \u0026amp; Finance GlobeSt.com, 2025 Leading Global Real Estate Lawyer Lawdragon 500, 2024 Notable Practitioner, Investment Funds, M\u0026amp;A and Private Equity IFLR 1000, 2021 Real Estate and Construction: Real Estate  Legal 500, 2016 Women Leaders in the Law Fortune magazine, 2013 Top Real Estate Women Attorneys  Super Lawyers, 2012 and 2013 New York Super Lawyer Super Lawyers, 2011 and 2012 District of Columbia Georgia New York Judicial Clerk, Hon. William C. O'Kelley, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","searchable_name":"Jennifer M. Morgan","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},{"match_score_text":"7.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"johnson","first_name":"arwen","middle_name":"r.","nick_name":"arwen","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},{"match_score_text":"6.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"sumner","first_name":"phyllis","middle_name":"b.","nick_name":"phyllis","id":427580,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":835,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePhyllis B. Sumner is a Partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Atlanta office and the firm's Chief Privacy Officer. She leads the firm's Data, Privacy and Security Practice and regularly counsels corporate boards, senior executives and other clients on cybersecurity preparedness, emergency response, remediation, compliance, internal and regulatory enforcement investigations, and data breach and privacy litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is a crisis manager and trial lawyer, who works with her clients' legal, compliance and business teams to strategize, manage and defend when significant privacy and security issues arise. She has assisted clients with their response to and management of hundreds of data security incidents and has represented clients defending against class actions and regulator investigations in some of the largest and most high-profile data security incidents.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA nationwide top ranked Privacy \u0026amp; Data Security lawyer by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, Phyllis\u0026rsquo; clients note \u0026ldquo;Her knowledge and expertise when it comes to ransomware incident response is second to none.\u0026rdquo; Phyllis is a recognized leader in the industry and consistently named to \u003cem\u003eCybersecurity Docket\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e annual list of \u0026ldquo;best and brightest Incident Response attorneys,\u0026rdquo; including the 2023 and 2024 Global Incident Response Top 50. Three-time \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e MVP, she also has earned recognition as a \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Distinguished Leader,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAtlanta Magazine\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e \"Women Making a Mark,\" and as one of \u003cem\u003eGlobal Data Review\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Women in Data,\u0026rdquo; and she is listed in the \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers of America\u003c/em\u003e for her high caliber work in privacy and data security law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for eight years, first for the Northern District of Illinois and then for the Northern District of Georgia, prosecuting high-profile cases such as Eric Rudolph, the Centennial Olympic Park bomber.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"phyllis-sumner","email":"psumner@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein 2019 data breach.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein 2017 data breach.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed defense of\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 2014 data breach consumer class action MDL.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed defense of\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Sears/Kmart\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the 2014 data breach financial institution consolidated class actions.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":209}]},"expertise":[{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1097,"guid":"1097.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":110,"guid":"110.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":17,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":18,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":19,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":20,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":21,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":22,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":23,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sumner","nick_name":"Phyllis","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Phyllis","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"B.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, Privacy \u0026 Data Security","detail":"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2022)"},{"title":"\"Her knowledge and expertise when it comes to ransomware incident response is second to none.\"","detail":"Chambers USA (2022)"},{"title":"Incident Response Top 30","detail":"Cybersecurity Docket (2016, 2018-2022)"},{"title":"She \"leads a top-notch team with deep experience in the full spectrum of data privacy.. in investigations and lawsuits.\"","detail":"Legal 500 (2022)"},{"title":"Recommended, Cyber Law","detail":"Legal 500 (2022-2022)"},{"title":"Recommended, General Commercial Disputes","detail":"Legal 500 (2020)"},{"title":"Named, Women in Data","detail":"Global Data Review (2019)"},{"title":"Named, Distinguished Leader","detail":"Daily Report (2017)"},{"title":"MVP, Cybersecurity \u0026 Privacy ","detail":"Law360 (2017)"},{"title":"MVP, Privacy","detail":"Law360 (2016)"},{"title":"Named, Women Making a Mark ","detail":"Atlanta Magazine (2016)"},{"title":"Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, Georgia (2013-2016)"},{"title":"MVP, Healthcare","detail":"Law360 (2014)"},{"title":"Director’s Award, Superior Performance in Trial of former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell ","detail":"Executive Office for the United States Attorneys (2008)"},{"title":"John Marshall Award, Prosecution of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph","detail":"Attorney General (2006)"},{"title":"Director’s Award, Prosecution of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph","detail":"Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2006)"},{"title":"Award, Prosecution of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006)"},{"title":"Honorary Special Agent Award, Trial and Conviction of former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell ","detail":"Internal Revenue Service (2006)"},{"title":"Director’s Award of Recognition, Trial and Conviction of a former Atlanta City Commissioner","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation (2003)"},{"title":"Honorary Special Agent Award, Trial and Conviction in a Multimillion Dollar Fraud Case","detail":"Internal Revenue Service (2003)"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePhyllis B. Sumner is a Partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Atlanta office and the firm's Chief Privacy Officer. She leads the firm's Data, Privacy and Security Practice and regularly counsels corporate boards, senior executives and other clients on cybersecurity preparedness, emergency response, remediation, compliance, internal and regulatory enforcement investigations, and data breach and privacy litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is a crisis manager and trial lawyer, who works with her clients' legal, compliance and business teams to strategize, manage and defend when significant privacy and security issues arise. She has assisted clients with their response to and management of hundreds of data security incidents and has represented clients defending against class actions and regulator investigations in some of the largest and most high-profile data security incidents.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA nationwide top ranked Privacy \u0026amp; Data Security lawyer by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, Phyllis\u0026rsquo; clients note \u0026ldquo;Her knowledge and expertise when it comes to ransomware incident response is second to none.\u0026rdquo; Phyllis is a recognized leader in the industry and consistently named to \u003cem\u003eCybersecurity Docket\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e annual list of \u0026ldquo;best and brightest Incident Response attorneys,\u0026rdquo; including the 2023 and 2024 Global Incident Response Top 50. Three-time \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e MVP, she also has earned recognition as a \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Distinguished Leader,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAtlanta Magazine\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e \"Women Making a Mark,\" and as one of \u003cem\u003eGlobal Data Review\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Women in Data,\u0026rdquo; and she is listed in the \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers of America\u003c/em\u003e for her high caliber work in privacy and data security law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for eight years, first for the Northern District of Illinois and then for the Northern District of Georgia, prosecuting high-profile cases such as Eric Rudolph, the Centennial Olympic Park bomber.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein 2019 data breach.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein 2017 data breach.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed defense of\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 2014 data breach consumer class action MDL.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed defense of\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Sears/Kmart\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the 2014 data breach financial institution consolidated class actions.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, Privacy \u0026 Data Security","detail":"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2022)"},{"title":"\"Her knowledge and expertise when it comes to ransomware incident response is second to none.\"","detail":"Chambers USA (2022)"},{"title":"Incident Response Top 30","detail":"Cybersecurity Docket (2016, 2018-2022)"},{"title":"She \"leads a top-notch team with deep experience in the full spectrum of data privacy.. in investigations and lawsuits.\"","detail":"Legal 500 (2022)"},{"title":"Recommended, Cyber Law","detail":"Legal 500 (2022-2022)"},{"title":"Recommended, General Commercial Disputes","detail":"Legal 500 (2020)"},{"title":"Named, Women in Data","detail":"Global Data Review (2019)"},{"title":"Named, Distinguished Leader","detail":"Daily Report (2017)"},{"title":"MVP, Cybersecurity \u0026 Privacy ","detail":"Law360 (2017)"},{"title":"MVP, Privacy","detail":"Law360 (2016)"},{"title":"Named, Women Making a Mark ","detail":"Atlanta Magazine (2016)"},{"title":"Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, Georgia (2013-2016)"},{"title":"MVP, Healthcare","detail":"Law360 (2014)"},{"title":"Director’s Award, Superior Performance in Trial of former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell ","detail":"Executive Office for the United States Attorneys (2008)"},{"title":"John Marshall Award, Prosecution of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph","detail":"Attorney General (2006)"},{"title":"Director’s Award, Prosecution of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph","detail":"Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2006)"},{"title":"Award, Prosecution of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006)"},{"title":"Honorary Special Agent Award, Trial and Conviction of former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell ","detail":"Internal Revenue Service (2006)"},{"title":"Director’s Award of Recognition, Trial and Conviction of a former Atlanta City Commissioner","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation (2003)"},{"title":"Honorary Special Agent Award, Trial and Conviction in a Multimillion Dollar Fraud Case","detail":"Internal Revenue Service (2003)"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11805}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:25.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:25.000Z","searchable_text":"Sumner{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Ranked Lawyer, Privacy \u0026amp; Data Security\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Her knowledge and expertise when it comes to ransomware incident response is second to none.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Incident Response Top 30\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Cybersecurity Docket (2016, 2018-2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"She \\\"leads a top-notch team with deep experience in the full spectrum of data privacy.. in investigations and lawsuits.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended, Cyber Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 (2022-2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended, General Commercial Disputes\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 (2020)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named, Women in Data\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Data Review (2019)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named, Distinguished Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Report (2017)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"MVP, Cybersecurity \u0026amp; Privacy \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360 (2017)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"MVP, Privacy\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360 (2016)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named, Women Making a Mark \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Magazine (2016)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, Georgia (2013-2016)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"MVP, Healthcare\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360 (2014)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Director’s Award, Superior Performance in Trial of former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Executive Office for the United States Attorneys (2008)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"John Marshall Award, Prosecution of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Attorney General (2006)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Director’s Award, Prosecution of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2006)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Award, Prosecution of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Honorary Special Agent Award, Trial and Conviction of former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Internal Revenue Service (2006)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Director’s Award of Recognition, Trial and Conviction of a former Atlanta City Commissioner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Federal Bureau of Investigation (2003)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Honorary Special Agent Award, Trial and Conviction in a Multimillion Dollar Fraud Case\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Internal Revenue Service (2003)\"}{{ FIELD }}Defending Capital One in 2019 data breach.{{ FIELD }}Led defense of Equifax Inc. in 2017 data breach.{{ FIELD }}Led defense of The Home Depot in 2014 data breach consumer class action MDL.{{ FIELD }}Led defense of Sears/Kmart in the 2014 data breach financial institution consolidated class actions.{{ FIELD }}Phyllis B. Sumner is a Partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Atlanta office and the firm's Chief Privacy Officer. She leads the firm's Data, Privacy and Security Practice and regularly counsels corporate boards, senior executives and other clients on cybersecurity preparedness, emergency response, remediation, compliance, internal and regulatory enforcement investigations, and data breach and privacy litigation.\nShe is a crisis manager and trial lawyer, who works with her clients' legal, compliance and business teams to strategize, manage and defend when significant privacy and security issues arise. She has assisted clients with their response to and management of hundreds of data security incidents and has represented clients defending against class actions and regulator investigations in some of the largest and most high-profile data security incidents. \nA nationwide top ranked Privacy \u0026amp; Data Security lawyer by Chambers USA, Phyllis’ clients note “Her knowledge and expertise when it comes to ransomware incident response is second to none.” Phyllis is a recognized leader in the industry and consistently named to Cybersecurity Docket’s annual list of “best and brightest Incident Response attorneys,” including the 2023 and 2024 Global Incident Response Top 50. Three-time Law360 MVP, she also has earned recognition as a Daily Report’s “Distinguished Leader,” Atlanta Magazine’s \"Women Making a Mark,\" and as one of Global Data Review’s “Women in Data,” and she is listed in the Best Lawyers of America for her high caliber work in privacy and data security law.\nShe served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for eight years, first for the Northern District of Illinois and then for the Northern District of Georgia, prosecuting high-profile cases such as Eric Rudolph, the Centennial Olympic Park bomber. Phyllis B Sumner Partner Top Ranked Lawyer, Privacy \u0026amp; Data Security Chambers USA, Nationwide (2022) \"Her knowledge and expertise when it comes to ransomware incident response is second to none.\" Chambers USA (2022) Incident Response Top 30 Cybersecurity Docket (2016, 2018-2022) She \"leads a top-notch team with deep experience in the full spectrum of data privacy.. in investigations and lawsuits.\" Legal 500 (2022) Recommended, Cyber Law Legal 500 (2022-2022) Recommended, General Commercial Disputes Legal 500 (2020) Named, Women in Data Global Data Review (2019) Named, Distinguished Leader Daily Report (2017) MVP, Cybersecurity \u0026amp; Privacy  Law360 (2017) MVP, Privacy Law360 (2016) Named, Women Making a Mark  Atlanta Magazine (2016) Super Lawyer Super Lawyers, Georgia (2013-2016) MVP, Healthcare Law360 (2014) Director’s Award, Superior Performance in Trial of former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell  Executive Office for the United States Attorneys (2008) John Marshall Award, Prosecution of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph Attorney General (2006) Director’s Award, Prosecution of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2006) Award, Prosecution of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006) Honorary Special Agent Award, Trial and Conviction of former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell  Internal Revenue Service (2006) Director’s Award of Recognition, Trial and Conviction of a former Atlanta City Commissioner Federal Bureau of Investigation (2003) Honorary Special Agent Award, Trial and Conviction in a Multimillion Dollar Fraud Case Internal Revenue Service (2003) University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Illinois Supreme Court of Georgia Defending Capital One in 2019 data breach. Led defense of Equifax Inc. in 2017 data breach. Led defense of The Home Depot in 2014 data breach consumer class action MDL. Led defense of Sears/Kmart in the 2014 data breach financial institution consolidated class actions.","searchable_name":"Phyllis B. Sumner","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"match_score_text":"6.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"yates","first_name":"sally","middle_name":"q.","nick_name":"sally","id":442754,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5180,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eFormer Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations practice and leads the firm's Crisis Management practice.\u0026nbsp; Sally\u0026rsquo;s deep experience, leadership and wide-ranging background provide clients with seasoned judgment in difficult times.\u0026nbsp; Her practice focuses on counseling clients in complex and sensitive matters, including government enforcement and regulatory matters, congressional investigations, compliance, corporate governance and crisis management.\u0026nbsp; Drawing upon her nearly three decades at the Department of Justice, she specializes in internal and independent investigations for public and private organizations and boards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSally is consistently ranked Band One by Chambers USA.\u0026nbsp; \"Sally is revered for her work in the government, and her reputations precedes her.\u0026nbsp; Sally wins praise from all corners of the market for her impressive\u0026nbsp;white-collar criminal defense practice.\u0026nbsp; She draws on her experience as Deputy Attorney General in her skilled handling of high-stakes investigations brought by government bodies.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs the second-highest ranking official at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and as Acting Attorney General, Sally was responsible for all of DOJ\u0026rsquo;s 113,000 employees including all prosecutorial, litigating, and national security components.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn accomplished trial lawyer and Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, Sally has tried numerous high-profile cases.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA 27-year veteran of DOJ, Sally rose through the ranks of Assistant United States Attorneys to become U.S. Attorney in Atlanta, Deputy Attorney General and Acting Attorney General. As Deputy Attorney General from 2015 through 2017, Sally was responsible for crafting and implementing initiatives focused on many of DOJ\u0026rsquo;s priorities, including corporate fraud, cybercrime, gang violence, civil rights, and financial crime. She led DOJ\u0026rsquo;s criminal justice reform efforts and implemented substantial prison reform measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to becoming Deputy Attorney General, Sally was the first woman to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. During her five years as the chief federal law enforcement official for the district, she oversaw the prosecution of all federal crimes and the litigation of civil matters and immediately became a leader in the Department as Vice Chair of the Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s Advisory Committee (AGAC), which guides DOJ\u0026rsquo;s strategies and policy decisions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe has tried numerous white collar and public corruption cases, and she was the lead prosecutor of Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore entering government service, Sally practiced as a civil litigation associate at King \u0026amp; Spalding. She has served as\u0026nbsp;a Visiting Distinguished Lecturer at Georgetown University Law Center, currently co-chairs the Board of Trustees of the non-partisan Council on Criminal Justice, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Ethics Research Center. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; Sally is a frequent speaker on a variety of public policy issues.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"sally-yates","email":"syates@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":27,"guid":"27.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":687,"guid":"687.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":463,"guid":"463.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":973,"guid":"973.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":14,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":113,"guid":"113.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1153,"guid":"1153.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1165,"guid":"1165.smart_tags","index":18,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":19,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":20,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":21,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":22,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":23,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":110,"guid":"110.capabilities","index":24,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1218,"guid":"1218.smart_tags","index":25,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":26,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Yates","nick_name":"Sally","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Sally","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":2190,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1986-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Q.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Honorary Doctor of Laws","detail":"Emory University - 2022"},{"title":"Crisis Leadership Trailblazer","detail":"National Law Journal - 2021"},{"title":"WWCDA Champion Award ","detail":"Women's White Collar Defense Association - 2021"},{"title":"Top 100 Women in Investigations","detail":"Global Investigations Review - 2021"},{"title":"Justice Robert Benham Award for Community Service","detail":"Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism - 2021"},{"title":"Dare to Create Justice Award","detail":"ACLU of Georgia - 2021"},{"title":"Chambers USA White Collar Crime \u0026 Investigations - Band 1","detail":"2021"},{"title":"Top 100 Women in Investigations","detail":"2021"},{"title":"Pillars of Justice Award","detail":"The Appleseed Network - 2019"},{"title":"Beacon of Justice Award","detail":"Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - 2018"},{"title":"Champion of Justice Award","detail":"National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers - 2018"},{"title":"American Constitution Society Legal Legend Award","detail":"2018"},{"title":"University of Georgia Distinguished Service Scroll Award","detail":"2018"},{"title":"Anti-Defamation League Albert B. Tuttle Jurisprudence Award","detail":"2018"},{"title":"Southern Center for Human Rights Luminary Award","detail":"2018"},{"title":"University of Georgia Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication Lifetime Achievement Award","detail":"2018"},{"title":"Bar Association of Washington D.C. Lawyer of the Year","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Muslim Advocates Freedom Award","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Champion of Justice Award","detail":"Urban League of Greater Atlanta"},{"title":"Emory University Public Interest Inspiration Award","detail":"2016"},{"title":"John Marshall Award","detail":"Attorney General"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eFormer Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations practice and leads the firm's Crisis Management practice.\u0026nbsp; Sally\u0026rsquo;s deep experience, leadership and wide-ranging background provide clients with seasoned judgment in difficult times.\u0026nbsp; Her practice focuses on counseling clients in complex and sensitive matters, including government enforcement and regulatory matters, congressional investigations, compliance, corporate governance and crisis management.\u0026nbsp; Drawing upon her nearly three decades at the Department of Justice, she specializes in internal and independent investigations for public and private organizations and boards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSally is consistently ranked Band One by Chambers USA.\u0026nbsp; \"Sally is revered for her work in the government, and her reputations precedes her.\u0026nbsp; Sally wins praise from all corners of the market for her impressive\u0026nbsp;white-collar criminal defense practice.\u0026nbsp; She draws on her experience as Deputy Attorney General in her skilled handling of high-stakes investigations brought by government bodies.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs the second-highest ranking official at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and as Acting Attorney General, Sally was responsible for all of DOJ\u0026rsquo;s 113,000 employees including all prosecutorial, litigating, and national security components.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn accomplished trial lawyer and Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, Sally has tried numerous high-profile cases.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA 27-year veteran of DOJ, Sally rose through the ranks of Assistant United States Attorneys to become U.S. Attorney in Atlanta, Deputy Attorney General and Acting Attorney General. As Deputy Attorney General from 2015 through 2017, Sally was responsible for crafting and implementing initiatives focused on many of DOJ\u0026rsquo;s priorities, including corporate fraud, cybercrime, gang violence, civil rights, and financial crime. She led DOJ\u0026rsquo;s criminal justice reform efforts and implemented substantial prison reform measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to becoming Deputy Attorney General, Sally was the first woman to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. During her five years as the chief federal law enforcement official for the district, she oversaw the prosecution of all federal crimes and the litigation of civil matters and immediately became a leader in the Department as Vice Chair of the Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s Advisory Committee (AGAC), which guides DOJ\u0026rsquo;s strategies and policy decisions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe has tried numerous white collar and public corruption cases, and she was the lead prosecutor of Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore entering government service, Sally practiced as a civil litigation associate at King \u0026amp; Spalding. She has served as\u0026nbsp;a Visiting Distinguished Lecturer at Georgetown University Law Center, currently co-chairs the Board of Trustees of the non-partisan Council on Criminal Justice, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Ethics Research Center. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; Sally is a frequent speaker on a variety of public policy issues.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Honorary Doctor of Laws","detail":"Emory University - 2022"},{"title":"Crisis Leadership Trailblazer","detail":"National Law Journal - 2021"},{"title":"WWCDA Champion Award ","detail":"Women's White Collar Defense Association - 2021"},{"title":"Top 100 Women in Investigations","detail":"Global Investigations Review - 2021"},{"title":"Justice Robert Benham Award for Community Service","detail":"Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism - 2021"},{"title":"Dare to Create Justice Award","detail":"ACLU of Georgia - 2021"},{"title":"Chambers USA White Collar Crime \u0026 Investigations - Band 1","detail":"2021"},{"title":"Top 100 Women in Investigations","detail":"2021"},{"title":"Pillars of Justice Award","detail":"The Appleseed Network - 2019"},{"title":"Beacon of Justice Award","detail":"Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - 2018"},{"title":"Champion of Justice Award","detail":"National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers - 2018"},{"title":"American Constitution Society Legal Legend Award","detail":"2018"},{"title":"University of Georgia Distinguished Service Scroll Award","detail":"2018"},{"title":"Anti-Defamation League Albert B. Tuttle Jurisprudence Award","detail":"2018"},{"title":"Southern Center for Human Rights Luminary Award","detail":"2018"},{"title":"University of Georgia Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication Lifetime Achievement Award","detail":"2018"},{"title":"Bar Association of Washington D.C. Lawyer of the Year","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Muslim Advocates Freedom Award","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Champion of Justice Award","detail":"Urban League of Greater Atlanta"},{"title":"Emory University Public Interest Inspiration Award","detail":"2016"},{"title":"John Marshall Award","detail":"Attorney General"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5823},{"id":5823}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:19.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:19.000Z","searchable_text":"Yates{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Honorary Doctor of Laws\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Emory University - 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Crisis Leadership Trailblazer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal - 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"WWCDA Champion Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Women's White Collar Defense Association - 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 100 Women in Investigations\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Investigations Review - 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Justice Robert Benham Award for Community Service\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism - 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Dare to Create Justice Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"ACLU of Georgia - 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA White Collar Crime \u0026amp; Investigations - Band 1\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 100 Women in Investigations\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Pillars of Justice Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Appleseed Network - 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Beacon of Justice Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Champion of Justice Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers - 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"American Constitution Society Legal Legend Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"University of Georgia Distinguished Service Scroll Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Anti-Defamation League Albert B. Tuttle Jurisprudence Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Southern Center for Human Rights Luminary Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"University of Georgia Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication Lifetime Achievement Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Bar Association of Washington D.C. Lawyer of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Muslim Advocates Freedom Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Champion of Justice Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Urban League of Greater Atlanta\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Emory University Public Interest Inspiration Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"John Marshall Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Attorney General\"}{{ FIELD }}Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations practice and leads the firm's Crisis Management practice.  Sally’s deep experience, leadership and wide-ranging background provide clients with seasoned judgment in difficult times.  Her practice focuses on counseling clients in complex and sensitive matters, including government enforcement and regulatory matters, congressional investigations, compliance, corporate governance and crisis management.  Drawing upon her nearly three decades at the Department of Justice, she specializes in internal and independent investigations for public and private organizations and boards.\nSally is consistently ranked Band One by Chambers USA.  \"Sally is revered for her work in the government, and her reputations precedes her.  Sally wins praise from all corners of the market for her impressive white-collar criminal defense practice.  She draws on her experience as Deputy Attorney General in her skilled handling of high-stakes investigations brought by government bodies.\"\nAs the second-highest ranking official at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and as Acting Attorney General, Sally was responsible for all of DOJ’s 113,000 employees including all prosecutorial, litigating, and national security components. \nAn accomplished trial lawyer and Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, Sally has tried numerous high-profile cases.\nA 27-year veteran of DOJ, Sally rose through the ranks of Assistant United States Attorneys to become U.S. Attorney in Atlanta, Deputy Attorney General and Acting Attorney General. As Deputy Attorney General from 2015 through 2017, Sally was responsible for crafting and implementing initiatives focused on many of DOJ’s priorities, including corporate fraud, cybercrime, gang violence, civil rights, and financial crime. She led DOJ’s criminal justice reform efforts and implemented substantial prison reform measures.\nPrior to becoming Deputy Attorney General, Sally was the first woman to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. During her five years as the chief federal law enforcement official for the district, she oversaw the prosecution of all federal crimes and the litigation of civil matters and immediately became a leader in the Department as Vice Chair of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC), which guides DOJ’s strategies and policy decisions.\nShe has tried numerous white collar and public corruption cases, and she was the lead prosecutor of Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph. \nBefore entering government service, Sally practiced as a civil litigation associate at King \u0026amp; Spalding. She has served as a Visiting Distinguished Lecturer at Georgetown University Law Center, currently co-chairs the Board of Trustees of the non-partisan Council on Criminal Justice, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Ethics Research Center.    Sally is a frequent speaker on a variety of public policy issues. Partner Honorary Doctor of Laws Emory University - 2022 Crisis Leadership Trailblazer National Law Journal - 2021 WWCDA Champion Award  Women's White Collar Defense Association - 2021 Top 100 Women in Investigations Global Investigations Review - 2021 Justice Robert Benham Award for Community Service Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism - 2021 Dare to Create Justice Award ACLU of Georgia - 2021 Chambers USA White Collar Crime \u0026amp; Investigations - Band 1 2021 Top 100 Women in Investigations 2021 Pillars of Justice Award The Appleseed Network - 2019 Beacon of Justice Award Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - 2018 Champion of Justice Award National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers - 2018 American Constitution Society Legal Legend Award 2018 University of Georgia Distinguished Service Scroll Award 2018 Anti-Defamation League Albert B. Tuttle Jurisprudence Award 2018 Southern Center for Human Rights Luminary Award 2018 University of Georgia Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication Lifetime Achievement Award 2018 Bar Association of Washington D.C. Lawyer of the Year 2017 Muslim Advocates Freedom Award 2017 Champion of Justice Award Urban League of Greater Atlanta Emory University Public Interest Inspiration Award 2016 John Marshall Award Attorney General University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Georgia Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers Board of Visitors, University of Georgia School of Law Co-Chair, Board of Trustees, Council on Criminal Justice Board of Directors, Ethics Research Center Board of Directors, Project Healthy Minds","searchable_name":"Sally Q. Yates","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},{"match_score_text":"5.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"arbaugh","first_name":"natalie","middle_name":"l.","nick_name":"natalie","id":445534,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7306,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNatalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation,\u0026rdquo; ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003elisted in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, selected to the Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;list, and named \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex\u0026mdash;and often high-profile\u0026mdash;business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie\u0026rsquo;s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an IP case covered by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client\u0026rsquo;s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, the trial court judge stated, \u0026ldquo;Counsel\u0026rsquo;s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie\u0026rsquo;s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor\u0026mdash;someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"natalie-arbaugh","email":"narbaugh@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for \u003cstrong\u003einternational luxury fashion brand owners\u003c/strong\u003e, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms\u0026mdash;through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003esoftware solutions company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client\u0026rsquo;s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor\u0026rsquo;s customers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ea global petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading bank consulting and software services company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee\u0026rsquo;s transfer and use of thousands of client\u0026rsquo;s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client\u0026rsquo;s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client\u0026rsquo;s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Dress Infringement. Represented a \u003cstrong\u003ecooler and drink ware manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark Infringement. Successfully defended the \u003cstrong\u003eyellow pages and a marketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTexas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented \u003cstrong\u003ea whistleblower\u003c/strong\u003e in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFalse Claims Act. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded human services provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003eedible bouquet client\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003ehotel chain\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading watch manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of \u0026ldquo;Made in America\u0026rdquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003edisaster recovery and business continuity company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client\u0026rsquo;s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading global semiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecollege\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHarassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal communications company\u003c/strong\u003e against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAge Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGender Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecounty\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003emarketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA Collective Action. Defended a l\u003cstrong\u003eeading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReported Decisions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages\u0026nbsp;and judgment of over US$42M for defendants\u0026rsquo; willful infringement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoach Inc. v. Sassy Couture\u003c/em\u003e, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eINEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP\u003c/em\u003e; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Arbaugh","nick_name":"Natalie","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Justice Deborah Hankinson, Texas Supreme Court","years_held":"2001 - 2002"}],"first_name":"Natalie","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":176,"law_schools":[{"id":1852,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2001-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023–2025"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Trademark Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 "},{"title":"Recognized for Plaintiff","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026"},{"title":"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024"},{"title":"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation","detail":"D Magazine, 2014–2022"},{"title":"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” ","detail":"Texas Monthly, January 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNatalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation,\u0026rdquo; ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003elisted in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, selected to the Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;list, and named \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex\u0026mdash;and often high-profile\u0026mdash;business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie\u0026rsquo;s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an IP case covered by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client\u0026rsquo;s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, the trial court judge stated, \u0026ldquo;Counsel\u0026rsquo;s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie\u0026rsquo;s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor\u0026mdash;someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for \u003cstrong\u003einternational luxury fashion brand owners\u003c/strong\u003e, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms\u0026mdash;through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003esoftware solutions company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client\u0026rsquo;s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor\u0026rsquo;s customers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ea global petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading bank consulting and software services company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee\u0026rsquo;s transfer and use of thousands of client\u0026rsquo;s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client\u0026rsquo;s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client\u0026rsquo;s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Dress Infringement. Represented a \u003cstrong\u003ecooler and drink ware manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark Infringement. Successfully defended the \u003cstrong\u003eyellow pages and a marketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTexas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented \u003cstrong\u003ea whistleblower\u003c/strong\u003e in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFalse Claims Act. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded human services provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003eedible bouquet client\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003ehotel chain\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading watch manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of \u0026ldquo;Made in America\u0026rdquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003edisaster recovery and business continuity company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client\u0026rsquo;s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading global semiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecollege\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHarassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal communications company\u003c/strong\u003e against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAge Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGender Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecounty\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003emarketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA Collective Action. Defended a l\u003cstrong\u003eeading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReported Decisions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages\u0026nbsp;and judgment of over US$42M for defendants\u0026rsquo; willful infringement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoach Inc. v. Sassy Couture\u003c/em\u003e, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eINEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP\u003c/em\u003e; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023–2025"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Trademark Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 "},{"title":"Recognized for Plaintiff","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026"},{"title":"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024"},{"title":"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation","detail":"D Magazine, 2014–2022"},{"title":"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” ","detail":"Texas Monthly, January 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13341}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:57.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:57.000Z","searchable_text":"Arbaugh{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Trademark Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Plaintiff\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2014–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Monthly, January 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation{{ FIELD }}Trademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for international luxury fashion brand owners, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms—through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a software solutions company, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client’s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor’s customers.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a global petrochemical company, obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant’s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a leading bank consulting and software services company, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee’s transfer and use of thousands of client’s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client’s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client’s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Trade Dress Infringement. Represented a cooler and drink ware manufacturer in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.{{ FIELD }}Trademark Infringement. Successfully defended the yellow pages and a marketing company against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.{{ FIELD }}Qui Tam Litigation{{ FIELD }}Texas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented a whistleblower in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world’s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.{{ FIELD }}False Claims Act. Defended a publicly traded human services provider in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.{{ FIELD }}Class Action and Collective Action Litigation{{ FIELD }}Representing an edible bouquet client in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.{{ FIELD }}Represented a hotel chain in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading watch manufacturer in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of “Made in America” claims.{{ FIELD }}Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Other Commercial Litigation{{ FIELD }}Regularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a disaster recovery and business continuity company, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Fraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a Fortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client’s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a leading global semiconductor company in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Employment and Collective Action Litigation{{ FIELD }}Reverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a college against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Harassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a global communications company against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Age Discrimination. Successfully defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.{{ FIELD }}Gender Discrimination. Successfully defended a county against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Pregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a marketing company against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}FLSA. Defended a global insurance company against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.{{ FIELD }}FLSA Collective Action. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled.{{ FIELD }}Reported Decisions{{ FIELD }}Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc. Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages and judgment of over US$42M for defendants’ willful infringement){{ FIELD }}Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al., No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims){{ FIELD }}Coach Inc. v. Sassy Couture, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting){{ FIELD }}INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets){{ FIELD }}Kathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.){{ FIELD }}Natalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of Benchmark Litigation’s “Top 250 Women in Litigation,” ranked by Chambers USA, listed in The Best Lawyers in America®, selected to the Texas Super Lawyers list, and named “Winning Woman” by Texas Lawyer. \nNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex—and often high-profile—business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation. \nNatalie’s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General’s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a “Litigation Department of the Year” finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a “Winning Woman” by Texas Lawyer. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\nIn an IP case covered by Law360, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client’s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys’ fees, the trial court judge stated, “Counsel’s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.”\nThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie’s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor—someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.  Partner Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds Chambers USA, 2023–2025 Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025 Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026 Recognized for Trademark Law The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026 Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026 Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation”  Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026 Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026  Recognized for Plaintiff Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026 Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas”  Super Lawyers, 2017–2024 “Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation D Magazine, 2014–2022 “Top Women Attorneys in Texas”  Texas Monthly, January 2020 Southern Methodist University Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law Texas Member of Trade Secrets Committee, AIPLA, 2015–present Member of Board of Directors, Texas General Counsel Forum, DFW Chapter, 2011–Present Dallas Association of Young Lawyers Lifetime Fellow Law Clerk, Honorable Justice Deborah Hankinson, Texas Supreme Court Trade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation Trademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for international luxury fashion brand owners, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms—through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution. Trade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues. Trade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a software solutions company, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client’s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor’s customers. Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a global petrochemical company, obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant’s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms. Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a leading bank consulting and software services company, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee’s transfer and use of thousands of client’s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client’s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client’s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms. Trade Dress Infringement. Represented a cooler and drink ware manufacturer in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company. Trademark Infringement. Successfully defended the yellow pages and a marketing company against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff. Qui Tam Litigation Texas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented a whistleblower in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world’s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas. False Claims Act. Defended a publicly traded human services provider in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages. Class Action and Collective Action Litigation Representing an edible bouquet client in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Represented a hotel chain in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs. Represented a leading watch manufacturer in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of “Made in America” claims. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms. Other Commercial Litigation Regularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation. Breach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial. Breach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a disaster recovery and business continuity company, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms. Fraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a Fortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client’s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed. Breach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a leading global semiconductor company in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms. Employment and Collective Action Litigation Reverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a college against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client. Harassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a global communications company against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client. Age Discrimination. Successfully defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement. Gender Discrimination. Successfully defended a county against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client. Pregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a marketing company against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client. FLSA. Defended a global insurance company against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement. FLSA Collective Action. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled. Reported Decisions Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc. Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages and judgment of over US$42M for defendants’ willful infringement) Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al., No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims) Coach Inc. v. Sassy Couture, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting) INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets) Kathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)","searchable_name":"Natalie L. Arbaugh","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":176,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"match_score_text":"5.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"cothran","first_name":"terra","middle_name":"mareck","nick_name":"terra","id":443927,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6635,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTerra Mareck Cothran is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's construction and energy transaction practice. Her practice primarily focuses on construction-related agreements, including Front-End Engineering Design (FEED), Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC), and Engineering, Procurement, Construction Management (EPCM) contracts for both brownfield and greenfield energy and infrastructure projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith over twenty-five years of experience, Terra has been advising clients on energy projects spanning the U.S., Canada, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. To date, she has provided legal counsel\u0026nbsp;and led negotiations on\u0026nbsp;projects with a cumulative value of approximately $135 billion.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTerra has a wealth of experience in drafting, negotiating, and administering EPC and related contracts across the entire energy chain. Her work has included projects such as a pipeline through Russia and Kazakhstan, numerous offshore drilling and production facilities in the US, Canada, and the North Sea, as well as domestic and international refineries and refinery upgrades. Her extensive project experience includes involvement in upstream (both onshore and offshore), Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), midstream and crude oil pipelines, petrochemical facilities, and wind farms.\u0026nbsp;She led negotiations for more than five multi-billion-dollar domestic LNG facilities, as well as several international LNG facilities, representing both owners and contractors. Terra also has worked on the EPC and related contracts for several offshore West Africa projects, including wellhead platforms, and production and processing facilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTerra also brings valuable experience as a commercial manager and project manager, where she was instrumental in developing estimates and proposals for numerous multibillion-dollar projects, as well as working on the project execution side. This expertise has further strengthened her ability to provide comprehensive counsel on complex energy projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrently, Terra is excited to be expanding her practice and leveraging her extensive 25 years of EPC experience in the energy sector to focus on new energies, including solar, ammonia, and hydrogen projects.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Terra worked in-house as senior counsel at Bechtel Energy focused on negotiating, drafting and administering construction-based contracts for LNG and oil \u0026amp; gas megaprojects, as well as Senior Counsel at Chevron, where she focused on major global capital projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTerra is admitted to practice in Texas and Alberta (Canada).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"terra-cothran","email":"tcothran@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3702}]},"expertise":[{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":40,"guid":"40.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1149,"guid":"1149.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1219,"guid":"1219.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Cothran","nick_name":"Terra","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Terra","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"Mareck","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Top Women Lawyer","detail":"Texas Diversity Council, 2021"},{"title":"Top 50 Women Lawyers in Houston","detail":"National Diversity Counsil, 2019"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/terramareckcothran/","seodescription":"Terra Mareck Cothran is a lawyer of our Corporate Practice Group. Read more about her.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTerra Mareck Cothran is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's construction and energy transaction practice. Her practice primarily focuses on construction-related agreements, including Front-End Engineering Design (FEED), Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC), and Engineering, Procurement, Construction Management (EPCM) contracts for both brownfield and greenfield energy and infrastructure projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith over twenty-five years of experience, Terra has been advising clients on energy projects spanning the U.S., Canada, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. To date, she has provided legal counsel\u0026nbsp;and led negotiations on\u0026nbsp;projects with a cumulative value of approximately $135 billion.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTerra has a wealth of experience in drafting, negotiating, and administering EPC and related contracts across the entire energy chain. Her work has included projects such as a pipeline through Russia and Kazakhstan, numerous offshore drilling and production facilities in the US, Canada, and the North Sea, as well as domestic and international refineries and refinery upgrades. Her extensive project experience includes involvement in upstream (both onshore and offshore), Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), midstream and crude oil pipelines, petrochemical facilities, and wind farms.\u0026nbsp;She led negotiations for more than five multi-billion-dollar domestic LNG facilities, as well as several international LNG facilities, representing both owners and contractors. Terra also has worked on the EPC and related contracts for several offshore West Africa projects, including wellhead platforms, and production and processing facilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTerra also brings valuable experience as a commercial manager and project manager, where she was instrumental in developing estimates and proposals for numerous multibillion-dollar projects, as well as working on the project execution side. This expertise has further strengthened her ability to provide comprehensive counsel on complex energy projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrently, Terra is excited to be expanding her practice and leveraging her extensive 25 years of EPC experience in the energy sector to focus on new energies, including solar, ammonia, and hydrogen projects.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Terra worked in-house as senior counsel at Bechtel Energy focused on negotiating, drafting and administering construction-based contracts for LNG and oil \u0026amp; gas megaprojects, as well as Senior Counsel at Chevron, where she focused on major global capital projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTerra is admitted to practice in Texas and Alberta (Canada).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Top Women Lawyer","detail":"Texas Diversity Council, 2021"},{"title":"Top 50 Women Lawyers in Houston","detail":"National Diversity Counsil, 2019"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11386}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:01:29.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:01:29.000Z","searchable_text":"Cothran{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Women Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Diversity Council, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 50 Women Lawyers in Houston\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Diversity Counsil, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}Terra Mareck Cothran is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's construction and energy transaction practice. Her practice primarily focuses on construction-related agreements, including Front-End Engineering Design (FEED), Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC), and Engineering, Procurement, Construction Management (EPCM) contracts for both brownfield and greenfield energy and infrastructure projects.\nWith over twenty-five years of experience, Terra has been advising clients on energy projects spanning the U.S., Canada, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. To date, she has provided legal counsel and led negotiations on projects with a cumulative value of approximately $135 billion. \nTerra has a wealth of experience in drafting, negotiating, and administering EPC and related contracts across the entire energy chain. Her work has included projects such as a pipeline through Russia and Kazakhstan, numerous offshore drilling and production facilities in the US, Canada, and the North Sea, as well as domestic and international refineries and refinery upgrades. Her extensive project experience includes involvement in upstream (both onshore and offshore), Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), midstream and crude oil pipelines, petrochemical facilities, and wind farms. She led negotiations for more than five multi-billion-dollar domestic LNG facilities, as well as several international LNG facilities, representing both owners and contractors. Terra also has worked on the EPC and related contracts for several offshore West Africa projects, including wellhead platforms, and production and processing facilities.\nTerra also brings valuable experience as a commercial manager and project manager, where she was instrumental in developing estimates and proposals for numerous multibillion-dollar projects, as well as working on the project execution side. This expertise has further strengthened her ability to provide comprehensive counsel on complex energy projects.\nCurrently, Terra is excited to be expanding her practice and leveraging her extensive 25 years of EPC experience in the energy sector to focus on new energies, including solar, ammonia, and hydrogen projects.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Terra worked in-house as senior counsel at Bechtel Energy focused on negotiating, drafting and administering construction-based contracts for LNG and oil \u0026amp; gas megaprojects, as well as Senior Counsel at Chevron, where she focused on major global capital projects.\nTerra is admitted to practice in Texas and Alberta (Canada).  Terra Cothran lawyer Partner Top Women Lawyer Texas Diversity Council, 2021 Top 50 Women Lawyers in Houston National Diversity Counsil, 2019 University of Victoria  University of Calgary  Texas Law Society of Alberta, Canada American Bar Association National Association of Women Lawyers Association of International Energy Negotiators","searchable_name":"Terra Mareck Cothran","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},{"match_score_text":"5.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"eash","first_name":"katrina","middle_name":"g.","nick_name":"katrina","id":446379,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7344,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatrina is a trial lawyer and litigator with a passion for bet-the-business complex commercial, class action, intellectual property, and qui tam disputes. She is known for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatrina brings extensive experience across a broad spectrum of commercial disputes, including class action defense, fraud, breach of contract, non-compete and non-solicitation, partnership disputes, business torts, unfair competition, patent and trademark infringement, whistleblowing, and securities fraud. This breadth of experience allows her to approach each matter with efficiency, clarity, and strategic precision. Katrina understands that true success extends beyond legal victories\u0026mdash;winning means aligning litigation strategy with her client\u0026rsquo;s overarching business objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatrina\u0026rsquo;s experience representing direct‑selling organizations is particularly notable. She was recognized by \u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; for her work defending direct‑selling companies in high‑stakes, bet‑the‑business disputes. On the litigation front, she has successfully defended dozens of direct‑selling companies in class actions and downline‑raiding cases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHer work in this space extends well beyond litigation. Katrina is frequently called upon to defend direct‑selling and other companies facing Federal Trade Commission and state regulatory investigations, advise on regulatory compliance, and guide clients through high‑profile publicity crises. In each instance, she helps clients navigate risk decisively while protecting both their legal position and their brand.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"katrina-eash","email":"keash@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of class claims for \u003cstrong\u003emulti-level marketing organization\u003c/strong\u003e in bet-the-company class action after successfully compelling arbitration and enforcement of class-action waiver.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003emultiple multi-level marketing organizations\u003c/strong\u003e in bet-the-company class action litigation involving pyramid scheme allegations under RICO and federal securities laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising numerous \u003cstrong\u003emulti-level marketing organizations\u003c/strong\u003e regarding amendments to their governing documents and contracts with independent contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 computer company\u003c/strong\u003e against patent infringement claims and obtained dismissal of the claims following numerous dispositive and favorable Markman.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 computer company\u003c/strong\u003e against patent infringement claims and after exposing legal flaws in the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s case, obtained favorable settlement for my client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003erelators\u003c/strong\u003e in qui tam action alleging violations of both federal and state false claims prevention acts related to a clinical laboratory testing conspiracy carried out by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong\u003eloyalty rewards corporation\u003c/strong\u003e from a hostile takeover of its board of directors by obtaining an injunction preventing the expansion of the board of directors. Decision affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003elarge steel fabrication company\u003c/strong\u003e in bet-the-company suit against competitor. Obtained early injunction against competitor restraining the competitor\u0026rsquo;s theft and unlawful use of trade secrets. After litigating for two years, obtained successful settlement for client on eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e in case alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation when portfolio company defaulted on certain debts. Obtained dismissal of all claims against fund totaling more than US$7M.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eportfolio of oil and gas companies\u003c/strong\u003e against wrongful termination and breach of contract allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003egroup of vascular surgeons\u003c/strong\u003e against wrongful termination claims and obtained dismissal of numerous claims and defendants prior to trial and a take nothing judgment on all remaining claims following trial.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Eash","nick_name":"Katrina","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Chad Everingham, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2010 - 2012"}],"first_name":"Katrina","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":1852,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"G.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Up and Coming Practitioner” - General Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“500 X – The Next Generation”- Complex Commercial Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“Under 40 Hot List” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020–2023"},{"title":"“Future Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021–2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023"},{"title":"“Women in Business” List","detail":"Dallas Business Journal, 2023"},{"title":"“40 \u0026 Under” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2020–2023"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2026"},{"title":"“Super Lawyers Rising Stars”","detail":"Texas Monthly Magazine, 2018–2019, 2021, and 2023"},{"title":"“Up-and-Coming 50: Women Texas Rising Stars” ","detail":"Texas Monthly Magazine, 2023"},{"title":"“Texas Trailblazer”","detail":"Texas Lawyers, 2019"},{"title":"Named to “20 Under 40” List","detail":"Park Cities People, 2019"},{"title":"Professional Excellence Honors “On the Rise”","detail":"Texas Lawyers, 2019"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":"SMU Deadman School of Law"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatrina is a trial lawyer and litigator with a passion for bet-the-business complex commercial, class action, intellectual property, and qui tam disputes. She is known for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatrina brings extensive experience across a broad spectrum of commercial disputes, including class action defense, fraud, breach of contract, non-compete and non-solicitation, partnership disputes, business torts, unfair competition, patent and trademark infringement, whistleblowing, and securities fraud. This breadth of experience allows her to approach each matter with efficiency, clarity, and strategic precision. Katrina understands that true success extends beyond legal victories\u0026mdash;winning means aligning litigation strategy with her client\u0026rsquo;s overarching business objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatrina\u0026rsquo;s experience representing direct‑selling organizations is particularly notable. She was recognized by \u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; for her work defending direct‑selling companies in high‑stakes, bet‑the‑business disputes. On the litigation front, she has successfully defended dozens of direct‑selling companies in class actions and downline‑raiding cases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHer work in this space extends well beyond litigation. Katrina is frequently called upon to defend direct‑selling and other companies facing Federal Trade Commission and state regulatory investigations, advise on regulatory compliance, and guide clients through high‑profile publicity crises. In each instance, she helps clients navigate risk decisively while protecting both their legal position and their brand.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of class claims for \u003cstrong\u003emulti-level marketing organization\u003c/strong\u003e in bet-the-company class action after successfully compelling arbitration and enforcement of class-action waiver.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003emultiple multi-level marketing organizations\u003c/strong\u003e in bet-the-company class action litigation involving pyramid scheme allegations under RICO and federal securities laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising numerous \u003cstrong\u003emulti-level marketing organizations\u003c/strong\u003e regarding amendments to their governing documents and contracts with independent contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 computer company\u003c/strong\u003e against patent infringement claims and obtained dismissal of the claims following numerous dispositive and favorable Markman.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 computer company\u003c/strong\u003e against patent infringement claims and after exposing legal flaws in the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s case, obtained favorable settlement for my client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003erelators\u003c/strong\u003e in qui tam action alleging violations of both federal and state false claims prevention acts related to a clinical laboratory testing conspiracy carried out by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong\u003eloyalty rewards corporation\u003c/strong\u003e from a hostile takeover of its board of directors by obtaining an injunction preventing the expansion of the board of directors. Decision affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003elarge steel fabrication company\u003c/strong\u003e in bet-the-company suit against competitor. Obtained early injunction against competitor restraining the competitor\u0026rsquo;s theft and unlawful use of trade secrets. After litigating for two years, obtained successful settlement for client on eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e in case alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation when portfolio company defaulted on certain debts. Obtained dismissal of all claims against fund totaling more than US$7M.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eportfolio of oil and gas companies\u003c/strong\u003e against wrongful termination and breach of contract allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003egroup of vascular surgeons\u003c/strong\u003e against wrongful termination claims and obtained dismissal of numerous claims and defendants prior to trial and a take nothing judgment on all remaining claims following trial.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Up and Coming Practitioner” - General Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“500 X – The Next Generation”- Complex Commercial Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“Under 40 Hot List” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020–2023"},{"title":"“Future Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021–2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023"},{"title":"“Women in Business” List","detail":"Dallas Business Journal, 2023"},{"title":"“40 \u0026 Under” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2020–2023"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2026"},{"title":"“Super Lawyers Rising Stars”","detail":"Texas Monthly Magazine, 2018–2019, 2021, and 2023"},{"title":"“Up-and-Coming 50: Women Texas Rising Stars” ","detail":"Texas Monthly Magazine, 2023"},{"title":"“Texas Trailblazer”","detail":"Texas Lawyers, 2019"},{"title":"Named to “20 Under 40” List","detail":"Park Cities People, 2019"},{"title":"Professional Excellence Honors “On the Rise”","detail":"Texas Lawyers, 2019"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":"SMU Deadman School of Law"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13384}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T15:07:24.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T15:07:24.000Z","searchable_text":"Eash{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Up and Coming Practitioner” - General Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 X – The Next Generation”- Complex Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Under 40 Hot List” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2020–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Future Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2021–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Property Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Women in Business” List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Dallas Business Journal, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“40 \u0026amp; Under” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2020–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Future Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Super Lawyers Rising Stars”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Monthly Magazine, 2018–2019, 2021, and 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Up-and-Coming 50: Women Texas Rising Stars” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Monthly Magazine, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Texas Trailblazer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyers, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to “20 Under 40” List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Park Cities People, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Professional Excellence Honors “On the Rise”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyers, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Coif\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"SMU Deadman School of Law\"}{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of class claims for multi-level marketing organization in bet-the-company class action after successfully compelling arbitration and enforcement of class-action waiver.{{ FIELD }}Representing multiple multi-level marketing organizations in bet-the-company class action litigation involving pyramid scheme allegations under RICO and federal securities laws.{{ FIELD }}Advising numerous multi-level marketing organizations regarding amendments to their governing documents and contracts with independent contractors.{{ FIELD }}Represented Fortune 100 computer company against patent infringement claims and obtained dismissal of the claims following numerous dispositive and favorable Markman.{{ FIELD }}Represented Fortune 100 computer company against patent infringement claims and after exposing legal flaws in the plaintiff’s case, obtained favorable settlement for my client.{{ FIELD }}Representing relators in qui tam action alleging violations of both federal and state false claims prevention acts related to a clinical laboratory testing conspiracy carried out by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings.{{ FIELD }}Defended loyalty rewards corporation from a hostile takeover of its board of directors by obtaining an injunction preventing the expansion of the board of directors. Decision affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals.{{ FIELD }}Represented large steel fabrication company in bet-the-company suit against competitor. Obtained early injunction against competitor restraining the competitor’s theft and unlawful use of trade secrets. After litigating for two years, obtained successful settlement for client on eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented private equity fund in case alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation when portfolio company defaulted on certain debts. Obtained dismissal of all claims against fund totaling more than US$7M.{{ FIELD }}Representing a portfolio of oil and gas companies against wrongful termination and breach of contract allegations.{{ FIELD }}Represented a group of vascular surgeons against wrongful termination claims and obtained dismissal of numerous claims and defendants prior to trial and a take nothing judgment on all remaining claims following trial.{{ FIELD }}Katrina is a trial lawyer and litigator with a passion for bet-the-business complex commercial, class action, intellectual property, and qui tam disputes. She is known for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. \nKatrina brings extensive experience across a broad spectrum of commercial disputes, including class action defense, fraud, breach of contract, non-compete and non-solicitation, partnership disputes, business torts, unfair competition, patent and trademark infringement, whistleblowing, and securities fraud. This breadth of experience allows her to approach each matter with efficiency, clarity, and strategic precision. Katrina understands that true success extends beyond legal victories—winning means aligning litigation strategy with her client’s overarching business objectives.\nKatrina’s experience representing direct‑selling organizations is particularly notable. She was recognized by Texas Lawyer as a “Trailblazer” for her work defending direct‑selling companies in high‑stakes, bet‑the‑business disputes. On the litigation front, she has successfully defended dozens of direct‑selling companies in class actions and downline‑raiding cases.\nHer work in this space extends well beyond litigation. Katrina is frequently called upon to defend direct‑selling and other companies facing Federal Trade Commission and state regulatory investigations, advise on regulatory compliance, and guide clients through high‑profile publicity crises. In each instance, she helps clients navigate risk decisively while protecting both their legal position and their brand. Partner “Up and Coming Practitioner” - General Commercial Litigation Chambers USA, 2024–2025 “500 X – The Next Generation”- Complex Commercial Litigation Lawdragon, 2024–2025 “Under 40 Hot List”  Benchmark Litigation, 2020–2023 “Future Star”  Benchmark Litigation, 2021–2026 Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026 Intellectual Property Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2026 Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023 “Women in Business” List Dallas Business Journal, 2023 “40 \u0026amp; Under”  Benchmark Litigation US, 2020–2023 “Future Star” Benchmark Litigation US, 2026 “Super Lawyers Rising Stars” Texas Monthly Magazine, 2018–2019, 2021, and 2023 “Up-and-Coming 50: Women Texas Rising Stars”  Texas Monthly Magazine, 2023 “Texas Trailblazer” Texas Lawyers, 2019 Named to “20 Under 40” List Park Cities People, 2019 Professional Excellence Honors “On the Rise” Texas Lawyers, 2019 Order of the Coif SMU Deadman School of Law University of North Texas  Southern Methodist University Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law Texas Lifetime Fellow, Dallas Bar Association Member, Board of Directors, Park Cities Republican Women (2024-2026) Law Clerk, Hon. Chad Everingham, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Obtained dismissal of class claims for multi-level marketing organization in bet-the-company class action after successfully compelling arbitration and enforcement of class-action waiver. Representing multiple multi-level marketing organizations in bet-the-company class action litigation involving pyramid scheme allegations under RICO and federal securities laws. Advising numerous multi-level marketing organizations regarding amendments to their governing documents and contracts with independent contractors. Represented Fortune 100 computer company against patent infringement claims and obtained dismissal of the claims following numerous dispositive and favorable Markman. Represented Fortune 100 computer company against patent infringement claims and after exposing legal flaws in the plaintiff’s case, obtained favorable settlement for my client. Representing relators in qui tam action alleging violations of both federal and state false claims prevention acts related to a clinical laboratory testing conspiracy carried out by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings. Defended loyalty rewards corporation from a hostile takeover of its board of directors by obtaining an injunction preventing the expansion of the board of directors. Decision affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals. Represented large steel fabrication company in bet-the-company suit against competitor. Obtained early injunction against competitor restraining the competitor’s theft and unlawful use of trade secrets. After litigating for two years, obtained successful settlement for client on eve of trial. Represented private equity fund in case alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation when portfolio company defaulted on certain debts. Obtained dismissal of all claims against fund totaling more than US$7M. Representing a portfolio of oil and gas companies against wrongful termination and breach of contract allegations. Represented a group of vascular surgeons against wrongful termination claims and obtained dismissal of numerous claims and defendants prior to trial and a take nothing judgment on all remaining claims following trial.","searchable_name":"Katrina G. Eash","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"match_score_text":"5.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"moyé","first_name":"veronica","middle_name":" ","nick_name":"veronica","id":445787,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6656,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVeronica S. Moy\u0026eacute; acts as lead counsel on highly complex matters in a wide variety of disciplines, including antitrust, intellectual property, class actions, and commercial and business disputes. She is nationally recognized for her abilities and accomplishments as a trial lawyer.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2025, Veronica was named to the Forbes \u0026ldquo;America\u0026rsquo;s Top Lawyers\u0026rdquo; list and to the Benchmark Litigation US \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation\u0026rdquo; list. Veronica was named \u0026ldquo;Trial Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; by the Dallas Bar Association and to Benchmark\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 10 Women in Litigation\u0026rdquo; list in 2022. Benchmark Litigation US also named her to its 2022 and 2023 \u0026ldquo;Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America\u0026rdquo; lists. BTI Consulting named Veronica to its 2014 BTI Client Service All-Stars list, and, in 2015, to its list of Client Service All-Star MVPs. She is ranked Chambers USA Band 1 for Antitrust \u0026ndash; Texas (2010-2025) and General Commercial Litigation \u0026ndash; Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds (2021-2025). She was included on \u0026ldquo;The Defenders\u0026rdquo; list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas by the Dallas Business Journal in 2009, following the unanimous defense verdict she obtained for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry in a copyright infringement matter. She has also been named as one of The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation and Litigation \u0026ndash; Antitrust (2013-2025). Texas Lawyer named Veronica one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law in 2015, and Dallas Business Journal named her one of the leading Women in Business in North Texas in 2011. In addition, she has been recognized as one of the \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Lawyers in America\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025), \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Global Litigators\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025) and \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Litigators in America\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025) by Lawdragon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVeronica previously served as general counsel of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest healthcare Group Purchasing Organization (GPO), and in that role, she had overall responsibility for all legal matters as well as for advising the company\u0026rsquo;s senior management, board of directors, and business units regarding the numerous antitrust, congressional/DOJ/HHS investigation, legislative, procurement, and compliance issues it faced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"veronica-moye","email":"vmoye@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as co-lead trial counsel for a leading technology firm defending unprecedented antitrust claims attacking the firm\u0026rsquo;s core business model. Following a three-week bench trial in May 2021, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was described in the press as \u0026ldquo;the Super Bowl of Antitrust,\u0026rdquo; the Court ruled in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor on all antitrust claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare Group and its subsidiary United Surgical Partners in a Northern District of Illinois action alleging \u0026ldquo;no poach\u0026rdquo; agreements suppressed employee compensation in violation of the antitrust laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for The Charles Schwab Corp. in an action alleging the company\u0026rsquo;s merger with TD Ameritrade violates antitrust laws, pending in the Eastern District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Southern Methodist University in Texas state court action where a division of the United Methodist Church sought to void the University\u0026rsquo;s amended Articles of Incorporation; successfully obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court level.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for BNSF Railway when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in a United States District Court for the District of Columbia action alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fuel surcharges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act had caused $30+ billion in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in an action alleging a conspiracy to suppress nurse wages in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry at trial of copyright infringement action centered on his \u0026ldquo;Diary of a Mad Black Woman\u0026rdquo; film in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; obtained unanimous defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for BNSF Railway in Northern District of Texas and District of Minnesota proceedings where adversary sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on trademark infringement claims premised on adversary\u0026rsquo;s use of internet domain names; obtained summary judgment in both proceedings; secured Fifth Circuit affirmance of Northern District of Texas ruling and Eighth Circuit affirmance of District of Minnesota ruling; also secured denial of petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit ruling in the United States Supreme Court; ultimately obtained an order requiring adversary to transfer its internet domain names to the railroad company. Obtained \u0026ldquo;prior restraint\u0026rdquo; temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing publication of information on the Internet in the District of Minnesota on behalf of BNSF Railway; defeated motions seeking to stay the restraint before the Eighth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, alleging invasion of patient privacy; settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProsecuted Lanham Act and unfair competition claims based on false assertions regarding patent infringement on behalf of a memory chip manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas and based on false assertions regarding comparative analgesic efficacy on behalf of over-the-counter analgesic manufacturer in the District of New Jersey.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T in nationwide class action alleging false advertising and marketing in New Jersey state court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended Verizon in contract and fraud dispute with a vendor who claimed to have the contractual right to develop video-on-demand and home automation products; obtained summary judgment on vendor\u0026rsquo;s $525 million damages claim; co-lead counsel in two jury New Jersey state court trials on vendor\u0026rsquo;s claims; obtained remittitur of damages after the first trial; second trial limited to damages only and jury awarded less than the remitted damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Cal-Maine, the country\u0026rsquo;s largest shell egg and egg products producer, in a series of class action and opt-out matters, consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging producers nationwide participated in a supply-restriction scheme designed to fix the prices of eggs and egg products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging certain hospitals agreed to exchange compensation information among themselves in a manner that has reduced competition among Detroit-area hospitals in the wages paid to registered nurses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Novation, the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest healthcare GPO, in a $600 million Eastern District of Texas antitrust action alleging that certain contracting practices constitute unlawful exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and challenging bundled discount arrangements under section 2 of the Sherman Act; two co-defendants settled for cash payments of $49 million and $9 million, respectively; Novation settled the matter days prior to trial with no cash payment.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Moyé","nick_name":"Veronica","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Veronica","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1986-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for General \u0026 Commercial Litigation","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Band 1 in Antitrust, Texas – described as “a powerhouse lawyer who does great work.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2009-2023"},{"title":"Ranked in Litigation: General Commercial, Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds – described as “a go-to litigator in a range of commercial disputes.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2021-2023"},{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators for Global Litigation including: Anitrust, Class Actions, and IP","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023"},{"title":"Named as “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for Litigation","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Named “Trial Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION, 2022"},{"title":"Named to “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust","detail":"THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®, 2013-2023"},{"title":"Named as one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law","detail":"TEXAS LAWYER, 2015"},{"title":"Named one of the Leading Women in Business in North Texas","detail":"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2015"},{"title":"Named to the 2014 BTI Client Service All-Star and 2015 Client Service All-Star MVP","detail":"BTI CONSULTING, 2014, 2015"},{"title":"Named on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas","detail":"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2009"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/veronica-moy%C3%A9-bb99736/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVeronica S. Moy\u0026eacute; acts as lead counsel on highly complex matters in a wide variety of disciplines, including antitrust, intellectual property, class actions, and commercial and business disputes. She is nationally recognized for her abilities and accomplishments as a trial lawyer.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2025, Veronica was named to the Forbes \u0026ldquo;America\u0026rsquo;s Top Lawyers\u0026rdquo; list and to the Benchmark Litigation US \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation\u0026rdquo; list. Veronica was named \u0026ldquo;Trial Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; by the Dallas Bar Association and to Benchmark\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 10 Women in Litigation\u0026rdquo; list in 2022. Benchmark Litigation US also named her to its 2022 and 2023 \u0026ldquo;Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America\u0026rdquo; lists. BTI Consulting named Veronica to its 2014 BTI Client Service All-Stars list, and, in 2015, to its list of Client Service All-Star MVPs. She is ranked Chambers USA Band 1 for Antitrust \u0026ndash; Texas (2010-2025) and General Commercial Litigation \u0026ndash; Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds (2021-2025). She was included on \u0026ldquo;The Defenders\u0026rdquo; list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas by the Dallas Business Journal in 2009, following the unanimous defense verdict she obtained for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry in a copyright infringement matter. She has also been named as one of The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation and Litigation \u0026ndash; Antitrust (2013-2025). Texas Lawyer named Veronica one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law in 2015, and Dallas Business Journal named her one of the leading Women in Business in North Texas in 2011. In addition, she has been recognized as one of the \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Lawyers in America\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025), \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Global Litigators\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025) and \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Litigators in America\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025) by Lawdragon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVeronica previously served as general counsel of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest healthcare Group Purchasing Organization (GPO), and in that role, she had overall responsibility for all legal matters as well as for advising the company\u0026rsquo;s senior management, board of directors, and business units regarding the numerous antitrust, congressional/DOJ/HHS investigation, legislative, procurement, and compliance issues it faced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as co-lead trial counsel for a leading technology firm defending unprecedented antitrust claims attacking the firm\u0026rsquo;s core business model. Following a three-week bench trial in May 2021, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was described in the press as \u0026ldquo;the Super Bowl of Antitrust,\u0026rdquo; the Court ruled in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor on all antitrust claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare Group and its subsidiary United Surgical Partners in a Northern District of Illinois action alleging \u0026ldquo;no poach\u0026rdquo; agreements suppressed employee compensation in violation of the antitrust laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for The Charles Schwab Corp. in an action alleging the company\u0026rsquo;s merger with TD Ameritrade violates antitrust laws, pending in the Eastern District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Southern Methodist University in Texas state court action where a division of the United Methodist Church sought to void the University\u0026rsquo;s amended Articles of Incorporation; successfully obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court level.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for BNSF Railway when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in a United States District Court for the District of Columbia action alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fuel surcharges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act had caused $30+ billion in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in an action alleging a conspiracy to suppress nurse wages in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry at trial of copyright infringement action centered on his \u0026ldquo;Diary of a Mad Black Woman\u0026rdquo; film in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; obtained unanimous defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for BNSF Railway in Northern District of Texas and District of Minnesota proceedings where adversary sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on trademark infringement claims premised on adversary\u0026rsquo;s use of internet domain names; obtained summary judgment in both proceedings; secured Fifth Circuit affirmance of Northern District of Texas ruling and Eighth Circuit affirmance of District of Minnesota ruling; also secured denial of petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit ruling in the United States Supreme Court; ultimately obtained an order requiring adversary to transfer its internet domain names to the railroad company. Obtained \u0026ldquo;prior restraint\u0026rdquo; temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing publication of information on the Internet in the District of Minnesota on behalf of BNSF Railway; defeated motions seeking to stay the restraint before the Eighth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, alleging invasion of patient privacy; settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProsecuted Lanham Act and unfair competition claims based on false assertions regarding patent infringement on behalf of a memory chip manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas and based on false assertions regarding comparative analgesic efficacy on behalf of over-the-counter analgesic manufacturer in the District of New Jersey.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T in nationwide class action alleging false advertising and marketing in New Jersey state court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended Verizon in contract and fraud dispute with a vendor who claimed to have the contractual right to develop video-on-demand and home automation products; obtained summary judgment on vendor\u0026rsquo;s $525 million damages claim; co-lead counsel in two jury New Jersey state court trials on vendor\u0026rsquo;s claims; obtained remittitur of damages after the first trial; second trial limited to damages only and jury awarded less than the remitted damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Cal-Maine, the country\u0026rsquo;s largest shell egg and egg products producer, in a series of class action and opt-out matters, consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging producers nationwide participated in a supply-restriction scheme designed to fix the prices of eggs and egg products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging certain hospitals agreed to exchange compensation information among themselves in a manner that has reduced competition among Detroit-area hospitals in the wages paid to registered nurses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Novation, the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest healthcare GPO, in a $600 million Eastern District of Texas antitrust action alleging that certain contracting practices constitute unlawful exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and challenging bundled discount arrangements under section 2 of the Sherman Act; two co-defendants settled for cash payments of $49 million and $9 million, respectively; Novation settled the matter days prior to trial with no cash payment.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for General \u0026 Commercial Litigation","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Band 1 in Antitrust, Texas – described as “a powerhouse lawyer who does great work.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2009-2023"},{"title":"Ranked in Litigation: General Commercial, Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds – described as “a go-to litigator in a range of commercial disputes.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2021-2023"},{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators for Global Litigation including: Anitrust, Class Actions, and IP","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023"},{"title":"Named as “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for Litigation","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Named “Trial Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION, 2022"},{"title":"Named to “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust","detail":"THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®, 2013-2023"},{"title":"Named as one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law","detail":"TEXAS LAWYER, 2015"},{"title":"Named one of the Leading Women in Business in North Texas","detail":"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2015"},{"title":"Named to the 2014 BTI Client Service All-Star and 2015 Client Service All-Star MVP","detail":"BTI CONSULTING, 2014, 2015"},{"title":"Named on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas","detail":"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2009"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11543}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-13T16:02:32.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-13T16:02:32.000Z","searchable_text":"Moyé{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for General \u0026amp; Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 in Antitrust, Texas – described as “a powerhouse lawyer who does great work.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2009-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in Litigation: General Commercial, Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds – described as “a go-to litigator in a range of commercial disputes.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2021-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators for Global Litigation including: Anitrust, Class Actions, and IP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LAWDRAGON, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “Trial Lawyer of the Year”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®, 2013-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"TEXAS LAWYER, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named one of the Leading Women in Business in North Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the 2014 BTI Client Service All-Star and 2015 Client Service All-Star MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI CONSULTING, 2014, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2009\"}{{ FIELD }}Served as co-lead trial counsel for a leading technology firm defending unprecedented antitrust claims attacking the firm’s core business model. Following a three-week bench trial in May 2021, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was described in the press as “the Super Bowl of Antitrust,” the Court ruled in our client’s favor on all antitrust claims.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare Group and its subsidiary United Surgical Partners in a Northern District of Illinois action alleging “no poach” agreements suppressed employee compensation in violation of the antitrust laws.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for The Charles Schwab Corp. in an action alleging the company’s merger with TD Ameritrade violates antitrust laws, pending in the Eastern District of Texas.{{ FIELD }}Represented Southern Methodist University in Texas state court action where a division of the United Methodist Church sought to void the University’s amended Articles of Incorporation; successfully obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court level.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for BNSF Railway when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in a United States District Court for the District of Columbia action alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fuel surcharges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act had caused $30+ billion in damages.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in an action alleging a conspiracy to suppress nurse wages in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry at trial of copyright infringement action centered on his “Diary of a Mad Black Woman” film in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; obtained unanimous defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for BNSF Railway in Northern District of Texas and District of Minnesota proceedings where adversary sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on trademark infringement claims premised on adversary’s use of internet domain names; obtained summary judgment in both proceedings; secured Fifth Circuit affirmance of Northern District of Texas ruling and Eighth Circuit affirmance of District of Minnesota ruling; also secured denial of petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit ruling in the United States Supreme Court; ultimately obtained an order requiring adversary to transfer its internet domain names to the railroad company. Obtained “prior restraint” temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing publication of information on the Internet in the District of Minnesota on behalf of BNSF Railway; defeated motions seeking to stay the restraint before the Eighth Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, alleging invasion of patient privacy; settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Prosecuted Lanham Act and unfair competition claims based on false assertions regarding patent infringement on behalf of a memory chip manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas and based on false assertions regarding comparative analgesic efficacy on behalf of over-the-counter analgesic manufacturer in the District of New Jersey.{{ FIELD }}Defended AT\u0026amp;T in nationwide class action alleging false advertising and marketing in New Jersey state court action.{{ FIELD }}Defended Verizon in contract and fraud dispute with a vendor who claimed to have the contractual right to develop video-on-demand and home automation products; obtained summary judgment on vendor’s $525 million damages claim; co-lead counsel in two jury New Jersey state court trials on vendor’s claims; obtained remittitur of damages after the first trial; second trial limited to damages only and jury awarded less than the remitted damages.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Cal-Maine, the country’s largest shell egg and egg products producer, in a series of class action and opt-out matters, consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging producers nationwide participated in a supply-restriction scheme designed to fix the prices of eggs and egg products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging certain hospitals agreed to exchange compensation information among themselves in a manner that has reduced competition among Detroit-area hospitals in the wages paid to registered nurses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Novation, the nation’s largest healthcare GPO, in a $600 million Eastern District of Texas antitrust action alleging that certain contracting practices constitute unlawful exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and challenging bundled discount arrangements under section 2 of the Sherman Act; two co-defendants settled for cash payments of $49 million and $9 million, respectively; Novation settled the matter days prior to trial with no cash payment.{{ FIELD }}Veronica S. Moyé acts as lead counsel on highly complex matters in a wide variety of disciplines, including antitrust, intellectual property, class actions, and commercial and business disputes. She is nationally recognized for her abilities and accomplishments as a trial lawyer. \nIn 2025, Veronica was named to the Forbes “America’s Top Lawyers” list and to the Benchmark Litigation US “Top 250 Women in Litigation” list. Veronica was named “Trial Lawyer of the Year” by the Dallas Bar Association and to Benchmark’s “Top 10 Women in Litigation” list in 2022. Benchmark Litigation US also named her to its 2022 and 2023 “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” lists. BTI Consulting named Veronica to its 2014 BTI Client Service All-Stars list, and, in 2015, to its list of Client Service All-Star MVPs. She is ranked Chambers USA Band 1 for Antitrust – Texas (2010-2025) and General Commercial Litigation – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds (2021-2025). She was included on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas by the Dallas Business Journal in 2009, following the unanimous defense verdict she obtained for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry in a copyright infringement matter. She has also been named as one of The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust (2013-2025). Texas Lawyer named Veronica one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law in 2015, and Dallas Business Journal named her one of the leading Women in Business in North Texas in 2011. In addition, she has been recognized as one of the “500 Leading Lawyers in America” (2023-2025), “500 Leading Global Litigators” (2023-2025) and “500 Leading Litigators in America” (2023-2025) by Lawdragon.\nVeronica previously served as general counsel of the nation’s largest healthcare Group Purchasing Organization (GPO), and in that role, she had overall responsibility for all legal matters as well as for advising the company’s senior management, board of directors, and business units regarding the numerous antitrust, congressional/DOJ/HHS investigation, legislative, procurement, and compliance issues it faced.\n  Partner Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for General \u0026amp; Commercial Litigation LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024 Band 1 in Antitrust, Texas – described as “a powerhouse lawyer who does great work.” CHAMBERS USA, 2009-2023 Ranked in Litigation: General Commercial, Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds – described as “a go-to litigator in a range of commercial disputes.” CHAMBERS USA, 2021-2023 Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators for Global Litigation including: Anitrust, Class Actions, and IP LAWDRAGON, 2023 Named as “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023 Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for Litigation LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024 Named “Trial Lawyer of the Year” DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION, 2022 Named to “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023 Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®, 2013-2023 Named as one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law TEXAS LAWYER, 2015 Named one of the Leading Women in Business in North Texas DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2015 Named to the 2014 BTI Client Service All-Star and 2015 Client Service All-Star MVP BTI CONSULTING, 2014, 2015 Named on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology  Harvard University Harvard Law School Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan New Jersey New York Texas Dallas Bar Association Antitrust Law \u0026amp; Economics Institute, Faculty Served as co-lead trial counsel for a leading technology firm defending unprecedented antitrust claims attacking the firm’s core business model. Following a three-week bench trial in May 2021, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was described in the press as “the Super Bowl of Antitrust,” the Court ruled in our client’s favor on all antitrust claims. Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare Group and its subsidiary United Surgical Partners in a Northern District of Illinois action alleging “no poach” agreements suppressed employee compensation in violation of the antitrust laws. Lead counsel for The Charles Schwab Corp. in an action alleging the company’s merger with TD Ameritrade violates antitrust laws, pending in the Eastern District of Texas. Represented Southern Methodist University in Texas state court action where a division of the United Methodist Church sought to void the University’s amended Articles of Incorporation; successfully obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court level. Lead counsel for BNSF Railway when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in a United States District Court for the District of Columbia action alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fuel surcharges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act had caused $30+ billion in damages. Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in an action alleging a conspiracy to suppress nurse wages in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Lead counsel for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry at trial of copyright infringement action centered on his “Diary of a Mad Black Woman” film in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; obtained unanimous defense verdict. Lead counsel for BNSF Railway in Northern District of Texas and District of Minnesota proceedings where adversary sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on trademark infringement claims premised on adversary’s use of internet domain names; obtained summary judgment in both proceedings; secured Fifth Circuit affirmance of Northern District of Texas ruling and Eighth Circuit affirmance of District of Minnesota ruling; also secured denial of petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit ruling in the United States Supreme Court; ultimately obtained an order requiring adversary to transfer its internet domain names to the railroad company. Obtained “prior restraint” temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing publication of information on the Internet in the District of Minnesota on behalf of BNSF Railway; defeated motions seeking to stay the restraint before the Eighth Circuit. Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, alleging invasion of patient privacy; settled on very favorable terms. Prosecuted Lanham Act and unfair competition claims based on false assertions regarding patent infringement on behalf of a memory chip manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas and based on false assertions regarding comparative analgesic efficacy on behalf of over-the-counter analgesic manufacturer in the District of New Jersey. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in nationwide class action alleging false advertising and marketing in New Jersey state court action. Defended Verizon in contract and fraud dispute with a vendor who claimed to have the contractual right to develop video-on-demand and home automation products; obtained summary judgment on vendor’s $525 million damages claim; co-lead counsel in two jury New Jersey state court trials on vendor’s claims; obtained remittitur of damages after the first trial; second trial limited to damages only and jury awarded less than the remitted damages. Lead counsel for Cal-Maine, the country’s largest shell egg and egg products producer, in a series of class action and opt-out matters, consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging producers nationwide participated in a supply-restriction scheme designed to fix the prices of eggs and egg products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms. Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging certain hospitals agreed to exchange compensation information among themselves in a manner that has reduced competition among Detroit-area hospitals in the wages paid to registered nurses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms. Lead counsel for Novation, the nation’s largest healthcare GPO, in a $600 million Eastern District of Texas antitrust action alleging that certain contracting practices constitute unlawful exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and challenging bundled discount arrangements under section 2 of the Sherman Act; two co-defendants settled for cash payments of $49 million and $9 million, respectively; Novation settled the matter days prior to trial with no cash payment.","searchable_name":"Veronica Moyé","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},{"match_score_text":"5.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"radin","first_name":"olivia","middle_name":" ","nick_name":"olivia","id":444918,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6475,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eOlivia Radin is a partner in the Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations practice who advises on high-risk global crises, regulatory investigations, and litigation matters. Olivia acts as global strategic counsel for her clients, helping them address risks arising from geopolitical tensions, resolve global investigations and allegations of misconduct, and manage\u0026nbsp;global\u0026nbsp;litigation threats. In the course of this work, she develops a full understanding of key inflection points and an effective response to them; runs teams that include numerous specialists, local counsel, experts and others; and supports clients\u0026rsquo; PR and public policy efforts.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivia represents clients in the technology, energy, financial services, and other industries. She has deep experience advising clients on litigation and investigations arising from global crises, geopolitical tensions or changing regulations and in investigating and remediating allegations of bias, fraud, sanctions and anti-money laundering violations, theft of trade secrets and other issues. She has extensive experience working with money transmitters on BSA/AML risks and fraud detection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivia represents clients in affirmative and defensive litigation and defends clients before the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, State Attorneys General, the New York State Department of Financial Services, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and other regulators.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivia has served as a member of the Development Committee of the Board of the Women\u0026rsquo;s White Collar Defense Association. She is also a fellow of the American Bar Foundation and the Federal Bar Council Inn of Court. Olivia has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCrain\u0026rsquo;s New York\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Business Notable Women in Law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for her work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Olivia was the New York managing partner of a large law firm and a member of its global board. Olivia earned her J.D. from Columbia Law School, where she was a Kent Scholar and served as a Managing Editor of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eColumbia Law Review\u003c/em\u003e. Upon graduation, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Robert D. Sack of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Prior to her legal career, Olivia earned a B.A. in Economics from Harvard University and spent five years as an investment banker.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"olivia-radin","email":"oradin@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eAdvising one of the world's largest technology companies across matters relating to Russia and the impact of sanctions and other international response to Russia\u0026rsquo;s military actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising one of the world's largest technology companies on investigations relating to the U.S., France, Hungary, South Africa, the UK and other countries.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising one of the world's largest technology companies on other key strategic regulatory risks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a global mining company on an internal investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a Fortune 100 company on a data security incident.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a Canadian pension fund in connection with risks relating to its investments and other matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading an investigation on behalf of a board in connection with allegations regarding disclosures.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading a board investigation into allegations of misconduct by senior management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting VW in connection with its resolution with DOJ relating to VW's diesel emissions case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting current and former employees of a global auto manufacturer in diesel-related regulatory investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest banks in investigations by multiple enforcement authorities into an alleged scheme to manipulate the setting of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other fixed-income reference rates.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a global financial institution with the largest share of the FX market in investigations by the Department of Justice, the CFTC, the FCA and the NYSDFS into allegations of manipulation and collusion in the setting of global foreign-exchange benchmarks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising multiple clients on FCPA, AML and Sanctions risks in connection with strategic acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":803,"guid":"803.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1327,"guid":"1327.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":687,"guid":"687.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":699,"guid":"699.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":18,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":984,"guid":"984.smart_tags","index":19,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":20,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Radin","nick_name":"Olivia","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Judge Honorable Robert D. Sack, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","years_held":"2004 - 2005"}],"first_name":"Olivia","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":485,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"James Kent Scholar","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2004-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Recommended” for Dispute Resolution – White Collar Criminal Defense","detail":"The Legal 500 United States"},{"title":"“Rising Star” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"“Rising Stars” ","detail":"Who’s Who Legal"},{"title":"Notable Women in Law ","detail":"Crain’s New York"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/olivia-radin-06543073/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eOlivia Radin is a partner in the Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations practice who advises on high-risk global crises, regulatory investigations, and litigation matters. Olivia acts as global strategic counsel for her clients, helping them address risks arising from geopolitical tensions, resolve global investigations and allegations of misconduct, and manage\u0026nbsp;global\u0026nbsp;litigation threats. In the course of this work, she develops a full understanding of key inflection points and an effective response to them; runs teams that include numerous specialists, local counsel, experts and others; and supports clients\u0026rsquo; PR and public policy efforts.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivia represents clients in the technology, energy, financial services, and other industries. She has deep experience advising clients on litigation and investigations arising from global crises, geopolitical tensions or changing regulations and in investigating and remediating allegations of bias, fraud, sanctions and anti-money laundering violations, theft of trade secrets and other issues. She has extensive experience working with money transmitters on BSA/AML risks and fraud detection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivia represents clients in affirmative and defensive litigation and defends clients before the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, State Attorneys General, the New York State Department of Financial Services, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and other regulators.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivia has served as a member of the Development Committee of the Board of the Women\u0026rsquo;s White Collar Defense Association. She is also a fellow of the American Bar Foundation and the Federal Bar Council Inn of Court. Olivia has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCrain\u0026rsquo;s New York\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Business Notable Women in Law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for her work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Olivia was the New York managing partner of a large law firm and a member of its global board. Olivia earned her J.D. from Columbia Law School, where she was a Kent Scholar and served as a Managing Editor of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eColumbia Law Review\u003c/em\u003e. Upon graduation, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Robert D. Sack of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Prior to her legal career, Olivia earned a B.A. in Economics from Harvard University and spent five years as an investment banker.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eAdvising one of the world's largest technology companies across matters relating to Russia and the impact of sanctions and other international response to Russia\u0026rsquo;s military actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising one of the world's largest technology companies on investigations relating to the U.S., France, Hungary, South Africa, the UK and other countries.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising one of the world's largest technology companies on other key strategic regulatory risks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a global mining company on an internal investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a Fortune 100 company on a data security incident.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a Canadian pension fund in connection with risks relating to its investments and other matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading an investigation on behalf of a board in connection with allegations regarding disclosures.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading a board investigation into allegations of misconduct by senior management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting VW in connection with its resolution with DOJ relating to VW's diesel emissions case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting current and former employees of a global auto manufacturer in diesel-related regulatory investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest banks in investigations by multiple enforcement authorities into an alleged scheme to manipulate the setting of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other fixed-income reference rates.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a global financial institution with the largest share of the FX market in investigations by the Department of Justice, the CFTC, the FCA and the NYSDFS into allegations of manipulation and collusion in the setting of global foreign-exchange benchmarks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising multiple clients on FCPA, AML and Sanctions risks in connection with strategic acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Recommended” for Dispute Resolution – White Collar Criminal Defense","detail":"The Legal 500 United States"},{"title":"“Rising Star” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"“Rising Stars” ","detail":"Who’s Who Legal"},{"title":"Notable Women in Law ","detail":"Crain’s New York"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11192}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-01-09T22:41:56.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-09T22:41:56.000Z","searchable_text":"Radin{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Recommended” for Dispute Resolution – White Collar Criminal Defense\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 United States\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Rising Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Rising Stars” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Notable Women in Law \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Crain’s New York\"}{{ FIELD }}Advising one of the world's largest technology companies across matters relating to Russia and the impact of sanctions and other international response to Russia’s military actions.{{ FIELD }}Advising one of the world's largest technology companies on investigations relating to the U.S., France, Hungary, South Africa, the UK and other countries.{{ FIELD }}Advising one of the world's largest technology companies on other key strategic regulatory risks.{{ FIELD }}Representing a global mining company on an internal investigation.{{ FIELD }}Advising a Fortune 100 company on a data security incident.{{ FIELD }}Advising a Canadian pension fund in connection with risks relating to its investments and other matters.{{ FIELD }}Leading an investigation on behalf of a board in connection with allegations regarding disclosures.{{ FIELD }}Leading a board investigation into allegations of misconduct by senior management.{{ FIELD }}Representing VW in connection with its resolution with DOJ relating to VW's diesel emissions case.{{ FIELD }}Representing current and former employees of a global auto manufacturer in diesel-related regulatory investigations.{{ FIELD }}Representing one of the world’s largest banks in investigations by multiple enforcement authorities into an alleged scheme to manipulate the setting of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other fixed-income reference rates.{{ FIELD }}Representing a global financial institution with the largest share of the FX market in investigations by the Department of Justice, the CFTC, the FCA and the NYSDFS into allegations of manipulation and collusion in the setting of global foreign-exchange benchmarks.{{ FIELD }}Advising multiple clients on FCPA, AML and Sanctions risks in connection with strategic acquisitions.{{ FIELD }}Olivia Radin is a partner in the Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations practice who advises on high-risk global crises, regulatory investigations, and litigation matters. Olivia acts as global strategic counsel for her clients, helping them address risks arising from geopolitical tensions, resolve global investigations and allegations of misconduct, and manage global litigation threats. In the course of this work, she develops a full understanding of key inflection points and an effective response to them; runs teams that include numerous specialists, local counsel, experts and others; and supports clients’ PR and public policy efforts. \nOlivia represents clients in the technology, energy, financial services, and other industries. She has deep experience advising clients on litigation and investigations arising from global crises, geopolitical tensions or changing regulations and in investigating and remediating allegations of bias, fraud, sanctions and anti-money laundering violations, theft of trade secrets and other issues. She has extensive experience working with money transmitters on BSA/AML risks and fraud detection.\nOlivia represents clients in affirmative and defensive litigation and defends clients before the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, State Attorneys General, the New York State Department of Financial Services, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and other regulators.\nOlivia has served as a member of the Development Committee of the Board of the Women’s White Collar Defense Association. She is also a fellow of the American Bar Foundation and the Federal Bar Council Inn of Court. Olivia has been recognized by Crain’s New York Business Notable Women in Law, Legal 500 and Who’s Who Legal for her work.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Olivia was the New York managing partner of a large law firm and a member of its global board. Olivia earned her J.D. from Columbia Law School, where she was a Kent Scholar and served as a Managing Editor of the Columbia Law Review. Upon graduation, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Robert D. Sack of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Prior to her legal career, Olivia earned a B.A. in Economics from Harvard University and spent five years as an investment banker. Partner “Recommended” for Dispute Resolution – White Collar Criminal Defense The Legal 500 United States “Rising Star”  Legal 500 “Rising Stars”  Who’s Who Legal Notable Women in Law  Crain’s New York Harvard University Harvard Law School Columbia University Columbia University School of Law New York Development Committee of the Women’s White Collar Defense Association Fellow of the American Bar Foundation Member of the Federal Bar Council and New York City Bar Association Law Clerk, Judge Honorable Robert D. Sack, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Advising one of the world's largest technology companies across matters relating to Russia and the impact of sanctions and other international response to Russia’s military actions. Advising one of the world's largest technology companies on investigations relating to the U.S., France, Hungary, South Africa, the UK and other countries. Advising one of the world's largest technology companies on other key strategic regulatory risks. Representing a global mining company on an internal investigation. Advising a Fortune 100 company on a data security incident. Advising a Canadian pension fund in connection with risks relating to its investments and other matters. Leading an investigation on behalf of a board in connection with allegations regarding disclosures. Leading a board investigation into allegations of misconduct by senior management. Representing VW in connection with its resolution with DOJ relating to VW's diesel emissions case. Representing current and former employees of a global auto manufacturer in diesel-related regulatory investigations. Representing one of the world’s largest banks in investigations by multiple enforcement authorities into an alleged scheme to manipulate the setting of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other fixed-income reference rates. Representing a global financial institution with the largest share of the FX market in investigations by the Department of Justice, the CFTC, the FCA and the NYSDFS into allegations of manipulation and collusion in the setting of global foreign-exchange benchmarks. Advising multiple clients on FCPA, AML and Sanctions risks in connection with strategic acquisitions.","searchable_name":"Olivia Radin","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},{"match_score_text":"5.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"varney","first_name":"lana","middle_name":"k.","nick_name":"lana","id":447253,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":4214,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLana Varney believes practicing law is like fly fishing: preparation, presentation, and perseverance required. Global drug and medical device companies call on Lana when they need help with defending product liability litigation anywhere in the world, or when they want to try and avoid it all together. She currently serves as national counsel for a global medical device company facing claims against its female pelvic mesh.\u0026nbsp; As national counsel, she has brought to conclusion litigation for international companies defending claims against an osteoporosis medication, an afib drug and an anti-epilepsy drug. She has defended human blood products and plasma derived biologics, over the counter cough/cold products containing PPA, penile implants, seizure medications, bipolar treatments, and antidiuretic hormones. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter 20 years of the above, Lana also assists clients with developing best practices and procedures to avoid litigation. She develops Litigation Avoidance Programs tailored to meet client specific company goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn experienced trial lawyer in courts all over the country, Lana is known for developing cost-saving and effective legal strategies for defending multiple lawsuits filed in multiple venues. She creates unique approaches to assessing inventories of cases and assisting clients with defending against them.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lana-varney","email":"lvarney@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eCurrently serving as national trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as national trial counsel for a global pharmaceutical company in osteoporosis medication litigation involving allegations of osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femur fractures\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as national counsel for a global pharmaceutical drug company in afib medication involving allegations of liver damage\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as national counsel for a global pharmaceutical drug company in anti-epilepsy medication involving allegations of SJS/TENs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended an international pharmaceutical company in over the counter cough/cold medicine litigation in several trials while serving as national counsel (allegations involved strokes)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as key strategist to national trial counsel for an international pharmaceutical company in Hemophilia/AIDS litigation and successfully defended the company in several trials\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped an effective Litigation Readiness Program for a Japanese pharmaceutical company, including teaching of best practices to President and Board of Directors and all key management executives\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped cost-effective inventory assessment protocol for use in mass torts for international drug and device companies\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1223,"guid":"1223.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Varney","nick_name":"Lana","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Lana","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"K.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Texas Super Lawyer, General litigation","detail":"Thomson Reuters, 2014 – Present"},{"title":"Texas Top Rated Lawyer ","detail":"LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, 2013 - Present"},{"title":"The Best Lawyers in America ","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2007 - Present"},{"title":"Life Science Star, Non-IP Litigation: Product Liability ","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2015 - Present"},{"title":"Texas Women Lawyers","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2014"},{"title":"Women in Business Law, Product Liability","detail":"Expert Guides, 2012 - Present"},{"title":"Litigation and Product Liability Lawyer ","detail":"Expert Guides, 2012 - Present"},{"title":"Who's Who Legal, Product Liability Defense","detail":"Law Business Research Ltd., 2005 - Present"},{"title":"Profiles in Power, finalist ","detail":"Austin Business Journal, 2009"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLana Varney believes practicing law is like fly fishing: preparation, presentation, and perseverance required. Global drug and medical device companies call on Lana when they need help with defending product liability litigation anywhere in the world, or when they want to try and avoid it all together. She currently serves as national counsel for a global medical device company facing claims against its female pelvic mesh.\u0026nbsp; As national counsel, she has brought to conclusion litigation for international companies defending claims against an osteoporosis medication, an afib drug and an anti-epilepsy drug. She has defended human blood products and plasma derived biologics, over the counter cough/cold products containing PPA, penile implants, seizure medications, bipolar treatments, and antidiuretic hormones. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter 20 years of the above, Lana also assists clients with developing best practices and procedures to avoid litigation. She develops Litigation Avoidance Programs tailored to meet client specific company goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn experienced trial lawyer in courts all over the country, Lana is known for developing cost-saving and effective legal strategies for defending multiple lawsuits filed in multiple venues. She creates unique approaches to assessing inventories of cases and assisting clients with defending against them.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eCurrently serving as national trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as national trial counsel for a global pharmaceutical company in osteoporosis medication litigation involving allegations of osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femur fractures\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as national counsel for a global pharmaceutical drug company in afib medication involving allegations of liver damage\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as national counsel for a global pharmaceutical drug company in anti-epilepsy medication involving allegations of SJS/TENs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended an international pharmaceutical company in over the counter cough/cold medicine litigation in several trials while serving as national counsel (allegations involved strokes)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as key strategist to national trial counsel for an international pharmaceutical company in Hemophilia/AIDS litigation and successfully defended the company in several trials\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped an effective Litigation Readiness Program for a Japanese pharmaceutical company, including teaching of best practices to President and Board of Directors and all key management executives\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped cost-effective inventory assessment protocol for use in mass torts for international drug and device companies\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Texas Super Lawyer, General litigation","detail":"Thomson Reuters, 2014 – Present"},{"title":"Texas Top Rated Lawyer ","detail":"LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, 2013 - Present"},{"title":"The Best Lawyers in America ","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2007 - Present"},{"title":"Life Science Star, Non-IP Litigation: Product Liability ","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2015 - Present"},{"title":"Texas Women Lawyers","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2014"},{"title":"Women in Business Law, Product Liability","detail":"Expert Guides, 2012 - Present"},{"title":"Litigation and Product Liability Lawyer ","detail":"Expert Guides, 2012 - Present"},{"title":"Who's Who Legal, Product Liability Defense","detail":"Law Business Research Ltd., 2005 - Present"},{"title":"Profiles in Power, finalist ","detail":"Austin Business Journal, 2009"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7327}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-02T13:38:59.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-02T13:38:59.000Z","searchable_text":"Varney{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Super Lawyer, General litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Thomson Reuters, 2014 – Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Top Rated Lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, 2013 - Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2007 - Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Life Science Star, Non-IP Litigation: Product Liability \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences, 2015 - Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Women Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Women in Business Law, Product Liability\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Expert Guides, 2012 - Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation and Product Liability Lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Expert Guides, 2012 - Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal, Product Liability Defense\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law Business Research Ltd., 2005 - Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Profiles in Power, finalist \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Austin Business Journal, 2009\"}{{ FIELD }}Currently serving as national trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation{{ FIELD }}Serving as national trial counsel for a global pharmaceutical company in osteoporosis medication litigation involving allegations of osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femur fractures{{ FIELD }}Serving as national counsel for a global pharmaceutical drug company in afib medication involving allegations of liver damage{{ FIELD }}Serving as national counsel for a global pharmaceutical drug company in anti-epilepsy medication involving allegations of SJS/TENs{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended an international pharmaceutical company in over the counter cough/cold medicine litigation in several trials while serving as national counsel (allegations involved strokes){{ FIELD }}Served as key strategist to national trial counsel for an international pharmaceutical company in Hemophilia/AIDS litigation and successfully defended the company in several trials{{ FIELD }}Developed an effective Litigation Readiness Program for a Japanese pharmaceutical company, including teaching of best practices to President and Board of Directors and all key management executives{{ FIELD }}Developed cost-effective inventory assessment protocol for use in mass torts for international drug and device companies{{ FIELD }}Lana Varney believes practicing law is like fly fishing: preparation, presentation, and perseverance required. Global drug and medical device companies call on Lana when they need help with defending product liability litigation anywhere in the world, or when they want to try and avoid it all together. She currently serves as national counsel for a global medical device company facing claims against its female pelvic mesh.  As national counsel, she has brought to conclusion litigation for international companies defending claims against an osteoporosis medication, an afib drug and an anti-epilepsy drug. She has defended human blood products and plasma derived biologics, over the counter cough/cold products containing PPA, penile implants, seizure medications, bipolar treatments, and antidiuretic hormones. \nAfter 20 years of the above, Lana also assists clients with developing best practices and procedures to avoid litigation. She develops Litigation Avoidance Programs tailored to meet client specific company goals.\nAn experienced trial lawyer in courts all over the country, Lana is known for developing cost-saving and effective legal strategies for defending multiple lawsuits filed in multiple venues. She creates unique approaches to assessing inventories of cases and assisting clients with defending against them. Partner Texas Super Lawyer, General litigation Thomson Reuters, 2014 – Present Texas Top Rated Lawyer  LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, 2013 - Present The Best Lawyers in America  Best Lawyers, 2007 - Present Life Science Star, Non-IP Litigation: Product Liability  LMG Life Sciences, 2015 - Present Texas Women Lawyers Best Lawyers, 2014 Women in Business Law, Product Liability Expert Guides, 2012 - Present Litigation and Product Liability Lawyer  Expert Guides, 2012 - Present Who's Who Legal, Product Liability Defense Law Business Research Ltd., 2005 - Present Profiles in Power, finalist  Austin Business Journal, 2009 Texas American Bar Association Product Liability Advisory Committee (PLAC) State Bar of Texas Texas Association of Defense Counsel Defense Research Institute International Association of Defense Counsel The University of Texas School of Law, Adjunct Professor Healthcare Businesswomen's Association, Inc., Member Supreme Court of Texas, Briefing Attorney, 1989–1990 IADC 31st Trial Academy, Faculty Member Currently serving as national trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation Serving as national trial counsel for a global pharmaceutical company in osteoporosis medication litigation involving allegations of osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femur fractures Serving as national counsel for a global pharmaceutical drug company in afib medication involving allegations of liver damage Serving as national counsel for a global pharmaceutical drug company in anti-epilepsy medication involving allegations of SJS/TENs Successfully defended an international pharmaceutical company in over the counter cough/cold medicine litigation in several trials while serving as national counsel (allegations involved strokes) Served as key strategist to national trial counsel for an international pharmaceutical company in Hemophilia/AIDS litigation and successfully defended the company in several trials Developed an effective Litigation Readiness Program for a Japanese pharmaceutical company, including teaching of best practices to President and Board of Directors and all key management executives Developed cost-effective inventory assessment protocol for use in mass torts for international drug and device companies","searchable_name":"Lana K. Varney","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},{"match_score_text":"4.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"borders","first_name":"keri","middle_name":" ","nick_name":"keri","id":443887,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6347,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKeri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri is ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;and was recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of four MVP\u0026rsquo;s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"keri-borders","email":"kborders@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e--- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Borders","nick_name":"Keri","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Judge Robert J. Timlin, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"1998 - 1998"}],"first_name":"Keri","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1997-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026 Beverages: Regulatory \u0026 Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023"},{"title":"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)","detail":"2020"},{"title":"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021"},{"title":"Named Women of Influence","detail":"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021"},{"title":"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner","detail":"Diversity Law Journal"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/keri-borders-36814112/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKeri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri is ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;and was recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of four MVP\u0026rsquo;s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e--- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026 Beverages: Regulatory \u0026 Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023"},{"title":"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)","detail":"2020"},{"title":"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021"},{"title":"Named Women of Influence","detail":"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021"},{"title":"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner","detail":"Diversity Law Journal"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9734}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:07.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Borders{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Next Generation Partner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026amp; Beverages: Regulatory \u0026amp; Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Women of Influence\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Diversity Law Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products.{{ FIELD }}Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.{{ FIELD }}Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.{{ FIELD }}Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.{{ FIELD }}Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., --- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.{{ FIELD }}Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.{{ FIELD }}Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.{{ FIELD }}Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.{{ FIELD }}Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’”{{ FIELD }}Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.{{ FIELD }}Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.{{ FIELD }}Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.{{ FIELD }}In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue.{{ FIELD }}Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products.{{ FIELD }}Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.{{ FIELD }}Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements.{{ FIELD }}Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products.{{ FIELD }}Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.{{ FIELD }}Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.{{ FIELD }}Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.{{ FIELD }}Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy.{{ FIELD }}Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.{{ FIELD }}Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).{{ FIELD }}Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.{{ FIELD }}Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.”{{ FIELD }}In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.{{ FIELD }}Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).{{ FIELD }}Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.{{ FIELD }}Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”{{ FIELD }}Keri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.\nKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\nKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\nKeri is ranked in Chambers USA, Legal 500, and was recognized by Law360 as one of four MVP’s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020. Partner Next Generation Partner Legal 500, 2023 Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026amp; Beverages: Regulatory \u0026amp; Litigation Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023 Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability) 2020 Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021 Named Women of Influence Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021 2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner Diversity Law Journal University of California  University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Member, American Bar Association Board of Governors, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Los Angeles Chapter Member, Food and Drug Law Institute Member, Consumer Brands Association Law Clerk, Judge Robert J. Timlin, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products. Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement. Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted. Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil. Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., --- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022). Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims. Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022). Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product. Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product. Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses. Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’” Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed. Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case. Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client. In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue. Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products. Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements. Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements. Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products. Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted. Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products. Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice. Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy. Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013). Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception. Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.). Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four. Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.” In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013). Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement. Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay). Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend. Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”","searchable_name":"Keri Borders","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"match_score_text":"4.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"brinkmann","first_name":"sara","middle_name":" ","nick_name":"sara","id":447104,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6224,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSara Brinkmann represents healthcare and life sciences clients in investigations and litigation in federal courts, state courts, arbitrations, and administrative proceedings across the country.\u0026nbsp; Sara has particular expertise in handling matters that arise under the federal False Claims Act and its state law analogues.\u0026nbsp; Sara also focuses on managed care litigation and has successfully recovered millions of dollars for healthcare providers in disputes against heath plans.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn experienced litigator, Sara also represents her clients in disputes involving contracts, business torts, antitrust, and products liability issues. Sara's clients include hospitals, academic medical centers, medical groups, retail pharmacies, medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, and other life sciences companies.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn additional to her litigation practice, she regularly advises clients on regulatory and compliance matters, including those that involved the Stark Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and other fraud and abuse laws. She also provides counseling and training regarding policies, compliance programs, self-disclosures, and billing matters.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, her clients have said:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \"Sara Brinkmann is an excellent litigator. She is very knowledgeable, highly organized, and a pleasure to work with.\"\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \"She cares about each of her cases and comes up with creative ideas to problem-solve.\" \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \"Sara Brinkmann is a fantastic lawyer.\"\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSara is regularly recognized by publications like \u003cem\u003eChambers,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America, \u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e. She is the past\u0026nbsp;Chair of the Health Law Section of the Houston Bar Association. She is also a frequent speaker and presenter on a variety of healthcare topics.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"sara-brinkmann","email":"sbrinkmann@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 713 295 9930","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a nationwide retail pharmacy client in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas and on appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals involving allegations of regulatory violations related to the dispensing of certain pharmaceuticals, resulting in a full dismissal of the case prior to discovery and was affirmed on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician recruitment and compensation arrangements, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician group compensation, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended an international medical device company in a False Claims Act case in the District of New Jersey involving allegations of coding errors on claim submissions, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended nationwide retail pharmacy in a False Claims Act case in the Central District of Illinois involving allegations related to usual and customary pricing, resulting in the Court\u0026rsquo;s grant of a Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissal of case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended several higher education institutions, academic medical centers, and life sciences companies in responding to Civil Investigative Demands and other government investigation, including conducting internal investigations and presenting to the government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised several higher education institutions on legal and compliance issues, including developing, implementing, and providing training to employees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised hospital systems regarding affiliation agreements and other complex transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised and provided due diligence support to healthcare companies and hospital systems for mergers and acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised hospital system regarding data privacy and HIPAA compliance issues in responding to third-party subpoenas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a government defense contractor in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Texas involving allegations of kickbacks and failure to comply with certain Federal Acquisition Regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a pharmaceutical company in several product liability cases in federal and state courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented hospitals systems and other healthcare providers in Texas federal and state court cases involving allegations of breach of contract, violations of Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and health care liability claim cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a hospital system in responding to Medicare RAC audits, securing full reimbursements for hospital system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Louisiana hospital system in federal antitrust case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a managed care organization in response to investigation by the Texas Office of Inspector General, resulting in a favorable result for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a hospital system in responding to third-party subpoenas successfully securing full reimbursements for hospital systems, including obtaining recovery of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees after prosecuting numerous motions to quash and motions for protection of medical and forensic records in civil, family, and criminal cases.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brinkmann","nick_name":"Sara","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. David Hittner, Texas","years_held":"2009 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Sara","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2197,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2009-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"\"She is very calm, organized and responsive.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"\"Sara has a very service-oriented ethos in how she practices.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked as a Band 3 lawyer for Healthcare: Government Matters \u0026 Regulation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked as a Key Lawyer for Healthcare: Service Providers","detail":"Legal 500 USA, 2025"},{"title":"\"Sara is very good at keeping larger business outcomes in mind.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"\"Sara is intelligent and customer-focused, responsive and competent.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"\"Sara is an exceptional attorney who provided outstanding legal analysis.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"Ranked Band 3 for Healthcare in Texas","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"Women in the Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2022"},{"title":"Top Rated Houston, TX Health Care Attorney","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Top Women Attorneys in Texas","detail":"2024"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"Best Lawyers - Texas, 2021 - 2023"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, Healthcare","detail":"Chambers USA, Texas, 2021-2023"},{"title":"“Sara Brinkmann comes recommended for her expert handling of qui tam actions brought under the False Claims Act.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"“Sara offers notable experience in litigation and administrative proceedings.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"“Sara Brinkmann possesses significant experience and knowledge on complex issues.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"Sara is “organized and approachable, and offers thoughtful approaches on ways to achieve the desired result.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"“She is a really sharp lawyer.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/sara-brinkmann-23b78335","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSara Brinkmann represents healthcare and life sciences clients in investigations and litigation in federal courts, state courts, arbitrations, and administrative proceedings across the country.\u0026nbsp; Sara has particular expertise in handling matters that arise under the federal False Claims Act and its state law analogues.\u0026nbsp; Sara also focuses on managed care litigation and has successfully recovered millions of dollars for healthcare providers in disputes against heath plans.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn experienced litigator, Sara also represents her clients in disputes involving contracts, business torts, antitrust, and products liability issues. Sara's clients include hospitals, academic medical centers, medical groups, retail pharmacies, medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, and other life sciences companies.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn additional to her litigation practice, she regularly advises clients on regulatory and compliance matters, including those that involved the Stark Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and other fraud and abuse laws. She also provides counseling and training regarding policies, compliance programs, self-disclosures, and billing matters.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, her clients have said:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \"Sara Brinkmann is an excellent litigator. She is very knowledgeable, highly organized, and a pleasure to work with.\"\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \"She cares about each of her cases and comes up with creative ideas to problem-solve.\" \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \"Sara Brinkmann is a fantastic lawyer.\"\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSara is regularly recognized by publications like \u003cem\u003eChambers,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America, \u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e. She is the past\u0026nbsp;Chair of the Health Law Section of the Houston Bar Association. She is also a frequent speaker and presenter on a variety of healthcare topics.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a nationwide retail pharmacy client in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas and on appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals involving allegations of regulatory violations related to the dispensing of certain pharmaceuticals, resulting in a full dismissal of the case prior to discovery and was affirmed on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician recruitment and compensation arrangements, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician group compensation, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended an international medical device company in a False Claims Act case in the District of New Jersey involving allegations of coding errors on claim submissions, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended nationwide retail pharmacy in a False Claims Act case in the Central District of Illinois involving allegations related to usual and customary pricing, resulting in the Court\u0026rsquo;s grant of a Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissal of case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended several higher education institutions, academic medical centers, and life sciences companies in responding to Civil Investigative Demands and other government investigation, including conducting internal investigations and presenting to the government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised several higher education institutions on legal and compliance issues, including developing, implementing, and providing training to employees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised hospital systems regarding affiliation agreements and other complex transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised and provided due diligence support to healthcare companies and hospital systems for mergers and acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised hospital system regarding data privacy and HIPAA compliance issues in responding to third-party subpoenas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a government defense contractor in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Texas involving allegations of kickbacks and failure to comply with certain Federal Acquisition Regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a pharmaceutical company in several product liability cases in federal and state courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented hospitals systems and other healthcare providers in Texas federal and state court cases involving allegations of breach of contract, violations of Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and health care liability claim cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a hospital system in responding to Medicare RAC audits, securing full reimbursements for hospital system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Louisiana hospital system in federal antitrust case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a managed care organization in response to investigation by the Texas Office of Inspector General, resulting in a favorable result for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a hospital system in responding to third-party subpoenas successfully securing full reimbursements for hospital systems, including obtaining recovery of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees after prosecuting numerous motions to quash and motions for protection of medical and forensic records in civil, family, and criminal cases.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"She is very calm, organized and responsive.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"\"Sara has a very service-oriented ethos in how she practices.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked as a Band 3 lawyer for Healthcare: Government Matters \u0026 Regulation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked as a Key Lawyer for Healthcare: Service Providers","detail":"Legal 500 USA, 2025"},{"title":"\"Sara is very good at keeping larger business outcomes in mind.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"\"Sara is intelligent and customer-focused, responsive and competent.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"\"Sara is an exceptional attorney who provided outstanding legal analysis.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"Ranked Band 3 for Healthcare in Texas","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"Women in the Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2022"},{"title":"Top Rated Houston, TX Health Care Attorney","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Top Women Attorneys in Texas","detail":"2024"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"Best Lawyers - Texas, 2021 - 2023"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, Healthcare","detail":"Chambers USA, Texas, 2021-2023"},{"title":"“Sara Brinkmann comes recommended for her expert handling of qui tam actions brought under the False Claims Act.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"“Sara offers notable experience in litigation and administrative proceedings.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"“Sara Brinkmann possesses significant experience and knowledge on complex issues.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"Sara is “organized and approachable, and offers thoughtful approaches on ways to achieve the desired result.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"“She is a really sharp lawyer.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9607}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-03-27T19:04:30.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-27T19:04:30.000Z","searchable_text":"Brinkmann{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"She is very calm, organized and responsive.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Sara has a very service-oriented ethos in how she practices.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a Band 3 lawyer for Healthcare: Government Matters \u0026amp; Regulation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a Key Lawyer for Healthcare: Service Providers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Sara is very good at keeping larger business outcomes in mind.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Sara is intelligent and customer-focused, responsive and competent.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Sara is an exceptional attorney who provided outstanding legal analysis.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 3 for Healthcare in Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Women in the Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Rated Houston, TX Health Care Attorney\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Women Attorneys in Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers - Texas, 2021 - 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Ranked Lawyer, Healthcare\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Texas, 2021-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Sara Brinkmann comes recommended for her expert handling of qui tam actions brought under the False Claims Act.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Sara offers notable experience in litigation and administrative proceedings.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Sara Brinkmann possesses significant experience and knowledge on complex issues.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Sara is “organized and approachable, and offers thoughtful approaches on ways to achieve the desired result.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“She is a really sharp lawyer.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a nationwide retail pharmacy client in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas and on appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals involving allegations of regulatory violations related to the dispensing of certain pharmaceuticals, resulting in a full dismissal of the case prior to discovery and was affirmed on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician recruitment and compensation arrangements, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician group compensation, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended an international medical device company in a False Claims Act case in the District of New Jersey involving allegations of coding errors on claim submissions, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended nationwide retail pharmacy in a False Claims Act case in the Central District of Illinois involving allegations related to usual and customary pricing, resulting in the Court’s grant of a Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissal of case.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended several higher education institutions, academic medical centers, and life sciences companies in responding to Civil Investigative Demands and other government investigation, including conducting internal investigations and presenting to the government.{{ FIELD }}Advised several higher education institutions on legal and compliance issues, including developing, implementing, and providing training to employees.{{ FIELD }}Advised hospital systems regarding affiliation agreements and other complex transactions.{{ FIELD }}Advised and provided due diligence support to healthcare companies and hospital systems for mergers and acquisitions.{{ FIELD }}Advised hospital system regarding data privacy and HIPAA compliance issues in responding to third-party subpoenas.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a government defense contractor in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Texas involving allegations of kickbacks and failure to comply with certain Federal Acquisition Regulations.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a pharmaceutical company in several product liability cases in federal and state courts across the country.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented hospitals systems and other healthcare providers in Texas federal and state court cases involving allegations of breach of contract, violations of Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and health care liability claim cases.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a hospital system in responding to Medicare RAC audits, securing full reimbursements for hospital system.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Louisiana hospital system in federal antitrust case.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a managed care organization in response to investigation by the Texas Office of Inspector General, resulting in a favorable result for the client.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a hospital system in responding to third-party subpoenas successfully securing full reimbursements for hospital systems, including obtaining recovery of attorneys’ fees after prosecuting numerous motions to quash and motions for protection of medical and forensic records in civil, family, and criminal cases.{{ FIELD }}Sara Brinkmann represents healthcare and life sciences clients in investigations and litigation in federal courts, state courts, arbitrations, and administrative proceedings across the country.  Sara has particular expertise in handling matters that arise under the federal False Claims Act and its state law analogues.  Sara also focuses on managed care litigation and has successfully recovered millions of dollars for healthcare providers in disputes against heath plans. \nAn experienced litigator, Sara also represents her clients in disputes involving contracts, business torts, antitrust, and products liability issues. Sara's clients include hospitals, academic medical centers, medical groups, retail pharmacies, medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, and other life sciences companies.  \nIn additional to her litigation practice, she regularly advises clients on regulatory and compliance matters, including those that involved the Stark Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and other fraud and abuse laws. She also provides counseling and training regarding policies, compliance programs, self-disclosures, and billing matters.  \nThrough Chambers USA, her clients have said: \n     \"Sara Brinkmann is an excellent litigator. She is very knowledgeable, highly organized, and a pleasure to work with.\"\n     \"She cares about each of her cases and comes up with creative ideas to problem-solve.\" \n     \"Sara Brinkmann is a fantastic lawyer.\"\nSara is regularly recognized by publications like Chambers, Best Lawyers in America, and Super Lawyers. She is the past Chair of the Health Law Section of the Houston Bar Association. She is also a frequent speaker and presenter on a variety of healthcare topics. Partner \"She is very calm, organized and responsive.\" Chambers USA, 2025 \"Sara has a very service-oriented ethos in how she practices.\" Chambers USA, 2025 Ranked as a Band 3 lawyer for Healthcare: Government Matters \u0026amp; Regulation Chambers USA, 2025 Ranked as a Key Lawyer for Healthcare: Service Providers Legal 500 USA, 2025 \"Sara is very good at keeping larger business outcomes in mind.\" Chambers USA 2024 \"Sara is intelligent and customer-focused, responsive and competent.\" Chambers USA 2024 \"Sara is an exceptional attorney who provided outstanding legal analysis.\" Chambers USA 2024 Ranked Band 3 for Healthcare in Texas Chambers USA 2024 Women in the Law Best Lawyers, 2022 Top Rated Houston, TX Health Care Attorney Super Lawyers, 2023-2024 Top Women Attorneys in Texas 2024 Best Lawyers in America Best Lawyers - Texas, 2021 - 2023 Top Ranked Lawyer, Healthcare Chambers USA, Texas, 2021-2023 “Sara Brinkmann comes recommended for her expert handling of qui tam actions brought under the False Claims Act.” Chambers USA 2022 “Sara offers notable experience in litigation and administrative proceedings.” Chambers USA 2022 “Sara Brinkmann possesses significant experience and knowledge on complex issues.” Chambers USA 2022 Sara is “organized and approachable, and offers thoughtful approaches on ways to achieve the desired result.” Chambers USA 2022 “She is a really sharp lawyer.” Chambers USA 2022 Baylor University Baylor University School of Law University of Houston University of Houston Law Center University of Houston University of Houston Law Center Texas Houston Bar Association, Member (Health Law Section, Chair 2021-2022; Campaign for the Homeless Committee, Former Member; Law Week Committee, Former Member) Federal Bar Association, Member State Bar of Texas, Member Texas Bar Foundation, Fellow Defense Research Institute, Member Greater Houston Society for Healthcare Risk Management Law Clerk, Hon. David Hittner, Texas Successfully defended a nationwide retail pharmacy client in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas and on appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals involving allegations of regulatory violations related to the dispensing of certain pharmaceuticals, resulting in a full dismissal of the case prior to discovery and was affirmed on appeal at the Fifth Circuit. Successfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician recruitment and compensation arrangements, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client. Successfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician group compensation, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client. Successfully defended an international medical device company in a False Claims Act case in the District of New Jersey involving allegations of coding errors on claim submissions, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client. Successfully defended nationwide retail pharmacy in a False Claims Act case in the Central District of Illinois involving allegations related to usual and customary pricing, resulting in the Court’s grant of a Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissal of case. Successfully defended several higher education institutions, academic medical centers, and life sciences companies in responding to Civil Investigative Demands and other government investigation, including conducting internal investigations and presenting to the government. Advised several higher education institutions on legal and compliance issues, including developing, implementing, and providing training to employees. Advised hospital systems regarding affiliation agreements and other complex transactions. Advised and provided due diligence support to healthcare companies and hospital systems for mergers and acquisitions. Advised hospital system regarding data privacy and HIPAA compliance issues in responding to third-party subpoenas. Successfully defended a government defense contractor in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Texas involving allegations of kickbacks and failure to comply with certain Federal Acquisition Regulations. Successfully defended a pharmaceutical company in several product liability cases in federal and state courts across the country. Successfully represented hospitals systems and other healthcare providers in Texas federal and state court cases involving allegations of breach of contract, violations of Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and health care liability claim cases. Successfully represented a hospital system in responding to Medicare RAC audits, securing full reimbursements for hospital system. Represented a Louisiana hospital system in federal antitrust case. Successfully defended a managed care organization in response to investigation by the Texas Office of Inspector General, resulting in a favorable result for the client. Successfully represented a hospital system in responding to third-party subpoenas successfully securing full reimbursements for hospital systems, including obtaining recovery of attorneys’ fees after prosecuting numerous motions to quash and motions for protection of medical and forensic records in civil, family, and criminal cases.","searchable_name":"Sara Brinkmann","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}]}}