Cases
Noteworthy Representations: Currently co-leading extensive trial litigation in four separate cases brought by the National Credit Union Administration Board as plaintiff against mortgage-backed securities trustees Deutsche Bank, HSBC, U.S. Bank,
Wells Fargo.
Successfully represented the National Credit Union Administration Board in multiple cases as plaintiff against major Wall Street banks serving as mortgage-backed securities underwriters, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, RBS,
UBS, resulting in an aggregate recovery of more than $5 billion for the agency
its insurance funds that ensure the health of the federal credit union system.
Successfully represented CUNA Mutual Group in cases against eight major Wall Street banks serving as mortgage-backed securities underwriters. Obtained complete reversal on appeal of the trial court's dismissal at summary judgment in CUNA Mutual v. RBS Securities , 799 F. 3d 729 (7th Cir. 2015). Subsequently, defendants in all other pending suits agreed to settlements.
Kaiser Health v. Pfizer , 721 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013). Successfully represented Kaiser on appeal in defending $150 million jury verdict for off-label drug marketing fraud by Pfizer.
Farina v. Nokia , No. 10-1064 (U.S.). Successfully represented defendant mobile phone providers in persuading the Supreme Court to deny review of a court of appeals decision finding that state-law claims alleging the Federal Communications Commission had adopted inadequate st
ards concerning permissible amounts of radiation from mobile phones were preempted by federal law.
Indian Br
s Farms v. Novartis Crop Protection , 617 F.3d 207 (3d Cir. 2009). Successfully represented blueberry farmers seeking a remedy for severe crop damage caused by a pesticide.
Fisher v. City of San Jose, California , 558 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Successfully represented the City of San Jose
its police department on Fourth Amendment issues concerning a twelve-hour armed st
off, obtaining a 6-5 reversal of the initial appellate decision.
Wyeth v. Levine , 555 U.S. 555 (2009). Successfully represented a musician who tragically lost her arm due to an improperly administered migraine drug, obtaining a 5-4 decision over the objection of the United States
numerous industry participants. The Court held that FDA approval of a manufacturer's label did not preempt a jury verdict concluding that the label provided inadequate warnings of the known risk of the drug that severely harmed our client.
New Jersey v. Delaware , 552 U.S. 597 (2008). Successfully represented the State of Delaware in a case brought under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction by New Jersey, which sought to build a liquefied natural gas unloading dock extending from the New Jersey shore onto submerged l
s belonging to Delaware. The case raised fascinating
challenging historical questions dating back to the original grant of territory in 1682 by the Duke of York to William Penn. The Court agreed with Delaware that a 1905 interstate compact between the States required Delaware's approval before any such project could be built.
South Carolina v. North Carolina , No. 138, Original (U.S. filed 2007). Successfully represented the State of South Carolina in obtaining adequate flows from an interstate river originating in North Carolina through eventual settlement following several years of litigation
development of expert analyses by hydrologists
economists.
Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust , 547 U.S. 633 (2006). Successfully represented a group of plaintiff investors opposing removal to federal court of cases filed in state court, in a case concerning important principles of removal jurisdiction.
Lincoln Property v. Roche , 546 U.S. 81 (2005). Successfully represented a defendant real property owner in removing a case filed in state court to federal court, in a case concerning important principles of removal jurisdiction.
Bates v. Dow Agrosciences , 544 U.S. 431 (2005). Successfully represented Texas farmers seeking a remedy for severe crop damage caused by inadequate pesticide label warnings. In a watershed decision that limited the instances in which federal law may be deemed to preempt state laws, the Supreme Court effectively reversed or abrogated more than fifty adverse lower court decisions in similar cases, over the objection of the United States
numerous industry participants that participated before the Court as amici curiae (or interested parties).
